Rail Engineer - Issue 195 | March-April 2022

We catch up with the engineering firm’s senior team to discuss its services, culture, and vision.

LEVEL CROSSINGS

CARMONT: SO MUCH TO LEARN

Despite an impressive record, the UK’s crossings can be made safer – but how?

Following RAIB’s final report, Rail Engineer gives an indepth assessment of its findings and recommendations.

www.railengineer.co.uk

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY

W I D E S C O P E, TIGHT FOCUS

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

VOLKERFITZPATRICK

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

MAR-APR 2022 – ISSUE 195

FOCUS FEATURES

by rail engineers for rail engineers

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

Scan this //

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

•

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

•

Further improving the environmental impact on the rail network

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

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

18 CONTENTS 10| 14| 18| 22|

31

3

Enhanced train protection

Clive Kessell examines the history of train protection systems and the latest efforts to ensure drivers observe lineside signals.

An update on track to train radio

Track to train radio communication is becoming ever more important. What advances have there been in recent years?

South Wales Metro: signalling and telecoms innovation Rail Engineer speaks to Amey Consulting about the design and implementation of this integrated public transport network.

Digital Railway signalling

What has the ‘Digital Railway’ delivered for signalling? Paul Darlington looks at recent schemes in the North West.

28

28|

A modular approach to signalling in Cornwall

Plans to replace Cornwall’s traditional mechanical signalling and signal boxes have been around for decades. We examine the project to revamp the technology.

56

34| 40| 48| 50| 52| 56| 60| 66|

Cutting emissions - cleaner, greener turbostars ‘Turbostar’ diesel mechanical multiple units may only be halfway through their lives, but their diesel engine technology hasn’t aged so well.

Carmont: so much to learn (part 1)

David Shirres examines RAIB’s final report on the Carmont derailment and considers its findings and recommendations.

Mitigating landslip risk

The increased use of monitoring technologies is among the ORR’s recommendations on Carmont. Senceive’s infraGuard provides a demonstrated solution.

UK Rail needs circular materials

The hot dip galvanizing industry is an ideal partner to support the decarbonisation of the UK rail network.

FFU sleepers - simply working & sustainable FFU timber is seeing increased usage across Europe’s rail networks, combining the durability of wood with many environmental benefits.

VolkerFitzpatrick - wide scope, tight focus

To understand the breadth and depth of VolkerFitzpatrick’s services, Rail Engineer talked to two members of its senior team.

Bridge renewal at Goathland

Bob Wright reports on one of the largest bridge renewal projects yet undertaken by the heritage rail sector.

Delivering benefit from our legacy assets National Highways is not a fit custodian of the historical railway structures under its care, says Graeme Bickerdike.

72| 80| 86| 90| 94| 98| 102| 106|

Integrated Rail Plan - the evidence

Network Rail’s Andrew Haines has hit out at criticism of the IRP, but has its poor reception been entirely unjustified?

Level crossings - what is being done to make them safer?

Great Britain has one of the best level crossing safety records in the world. How can it be improved?

Electrification of freight terminals

Debates on decarbonising rail tend to focus on the options for passenger transport. For freight there is only one solution – electrification.

Carmont: the age of the train (part 2)

Calls for ScotRail’s HSTs to be scrapped followed the Carmon derailment. But does this reflect an accurate understanding of the tragedy?

London Underground's Northern Line Extension Clive Kessell attended an IRSE lecture on this significant, if less well-publicised, project, which presented many engineering challenges.

Managing cracks and fractures safely on trains

In February, some 70 delegates and speakers met at IMechE’s headquarters in Westminster to discuss cracks and fractures.

HAROLD,THOMoS, and PANTHER in Huddersfield Andrew Stephenson recently opened the Institute of Railway Research’s hardware test facility at University of Huddersfield. Malcolm Dobell reports.

Countdown to Railtex and Infrarail

Following its successful return in September last year, the spring edition of Railtex/Infrarail is fast approaching.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

4

EDITORIAL EDITORIAL

Learning from Carmont The tragic 2020 Carmont accident was the first fatal train crash for 13 years. In the 20 years to 2007, there had been a fatal crash about every two years. Currently, the rail passenger fatality risk is one in every 60 billion passenger kilometres.

While this safety improvement is something to be celebrated, the industry cannot be complacent. This much is clear from the Rail Accident Investigation Report (RAIB)’s final report on the Carmont derailment which, as we explain, revealed significant weaknesses in addition to those identified by the earthworks and weather advisory task forces set up by Network Rail after the accident.

The failed drain that caused this accident was not built as designed when it was installed 10 years ago. Furthermore, with the required records not handed over on project completion, this drain was not being inspected. RAIB found that these were not isolated failings and recommended that Network Rail introduce effective measures to ensure compliance with its asset and project management processes.

Much of the report concerns control room management and operational risk mitigation for failed earthworks which Network Rail had considered to be ‘optimal’. Yet RAIB found this was not the case as such controls did not include running at reduced speeds, route proving trains, and the use of advanced weather forecasts.

A controversial issue was the crashworthiness of the 40-year-old HSTs as some considered that the report showed these trains to be “unsafe”. We explain why such claims are wrong and harmful, with ASLEF stating that their drivers may boycott these trains after August 2023, the third anniversary of the accident. Yet ScotRail introduced their refurbished HSTs to attract passengers from less safe roads, and the risk of a fatality to train passengers and train drivers is 60 times less than when in their cars.

Moreover, RAIB advised Rail Engineer that it has “not said that the Mark 3 coach is unsafe, far from it”. Instead, it considers that the risks of operating HSTs, and the many other trains that pre-date modern standards, need to be reviewed and reasonably practical additional risk control measures assessed. This measured view needs to be understood by all concerned.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Clive Kessell explains that the significant reduction in fatal train accidents after 2000 is largely due to the introduction of TPWS. He also describes a potential development, TPWS-CS (continuous supervision) that offers safety benefits for track workers and at user worked crossings which present a significant risk. Paul Darlington describes what is being done to reduce the risk at all types of level crossings.

Modernising level crossings is part of the Devon and Cornwall resignalling scheme which will be commissioned in November 2023 and is affordable due to its use of low-cost modular signalling systems. We also consider how various resignalling schemes has enabled the Manchester ROC to control major areas such as Blackpool, Bolton, and Liverpool.

The increasing importance of telecoms is highlighted by features on an innovative telecoms network being introduced on the South Wales Metro and the challenges of introducing the Future Railway Mobile Communication System to replace GSM-R. Furthermore, the effective integration of telecoms and other systems for the Northern Line extension to Battersea was one reason why this £1.1 billion project was under budget.

A UK battery-diesel hybrid train carried its first passengers in February. One of them was Malcolm Dobell who reports how HybridFLEX, a converted class 170 DMU, offers fuel efficiency savings, clean air, and reduced CO2 emissions. Decarbonisation is also the driver for a moveable overhead conductor bar system that enables electric locomotives to access freight terminals. Malcolm also reports from the University of Huddersfield which recently added a train motion simulator and pantograph test rig to its impressive facilities.

With the much-publicised problems of cracks on new trains, the IMechE’s “Managing Fractures Safely on the Railway” seminar was a timely event which showed what can be learnt from other industries and offered case studies. In the next issue we will report on how cracks have affected over 1,220 vehicles in the class 8xx fleet and the ORR’s response to this problem.

5

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

Production Editor Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com

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

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

The Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) is now subject to a Parliamentary Transport Committee inquiry. We look at evidence from over 20 major stakeholders and find that the DfT is about the only one that supports the IRP’s claim that enhanced lines can provide the same benefit as new high-speed lines. This evidence also shows how years of planning to develop growth strategies around HS2 have been wasted.

The dismantled railway network that offers potential re-openings, active travel and wildlife corridors is threatened by brutalist bridge infillings that ignore its real

value. Yet as Graeme Bickerdike explains political pressure might be lifting this threat.

To ensure continued operation of the preserved North Yorkshire Moors Railway some underbridges had to be replaced.

As Bob Wright explains, this presented significant funding and civil engineering challenges.

Finally, we describe some of the latest developments in sustainable and smart rail operations that will be on show at the combined Railtex / Infrarail exhibition in May. Rail Engineer will be there and we look forward to seeing you at our stand.

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

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Craig Smith

craig@rail-media.com

Rail Engineer Rail Media House, Samson Road, Coalville Leicestershire, LE67 3FP, UK. Switchboard: 01530 816 444 Website: www.railengineer.co.uk

Ukraine

Rail Engineer Videos

Rail Engineer wishes to pay tribute to the ‘iron people’ of Ukrainian Railways (Ukrzaliznytsia) which has a network of 20,000 kilometres (25% more than Network Rail). At least 88 railway workers have been killed since the Russian invasion.

Ukrzaliznytsia’s evacuation of 3.5 million people and delivery of large amounts of humanitarian aid in wartime conditions that are difficult to imagine are remarkable feats. In addition, the railway is starting to deliver grain to neighbouring European countries now that Black Sea ports are closed.

Also notable are the humanitarian trains run by the railways of Poland, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic for Ukrainians who had to leave their country.

Our thoughts are with all Ukrainians at this awful time.

http://rail.media/REYouTube

DAVID SHIRRES

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

Editorial copy to Email: news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email: subscribe@rail-media.com

The small print Rail Engineer is published by RailStaff Publications Limited and printed by PCP Ltd. © All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Part of: ® www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

6

NOTICES

IRSE Scottish Section Annual dinner

The popular annual Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) Scottish Section dinner was held on Thursday 17 March 2022 in the Marriott Hotel, Argyle Street, Glasgow. The dinner was officially the 2021 event, which had been moved back from the section’s traditional November date due to the UN COP26 summit taking place in Glasgow last year. The IRSE Scottish Section dinner is the largest annual rail industry event in Scotland.

PAUL DARLINGTON

The dinner was once again superbly organised

by IRSE Council member Peter Allan, who has managed the arrangements for the dinner in the Marriott Hotel since 2001. The section was also very grateful for the sponsorship of the dinner from MPI Recruitment. Simon Henser of MPI said: “After 20 years of supporting railways in Scotland and 14 years attending the IRSE dinner, it was an easy decision for us to sponsor this popular event”.

MPI said the hardest decision they had to make was the corporate gift to give each of the attendees of the dinner, as there had been so many good ones over the years. Wanting to give something back to the communities they supply, and learning of the wonderful work the charity does, MPI decided to make a donation of £1,200 to the Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity, on behalf of the company and the IRSE members and guests.

Two separate charity collections were organised on the night for the Railway Children charity and the DEC Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal. £2,461 was raised for these two worthwhile causes from the assembled guests.

Earlier in the evening the dinner was preceded by the March IRSE Scottish Section lecture, held at the same hotel. Following a late-

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

notice change, Douglas Rarity, programme manager strategy and investment, Network Rail stepped in to discuss ‘Timetable Led Project Development and Benefits Realisation’.

Douglas explained that the timetable is the core product that rail provides to customers. It is the sum of all parts of the system, distilled into locations and times. The quality of the timetable product is one of the reasons customers choose rail or another mode of transport. It is also what the industry measures train performance against, with performance being the most important driver of passenger satisfaction.

The timetable determines whether end to end journey times are competitive for passenger and freight services, and whether there is capacity for the service level required. It is the heart of a customer’s experience.

NOTICES

Timetabling can be used to test enhanced service levels to identify and strongly evidence why enhancements are required and what the enhancements need to deliver and where. It can also be used to evidence current constraints that may lead to overall timetable flexibility and performance being constrained. This evidence and the quantifiable benefits can readily flow into business cases.

Conversely, it can also evidence why proposed enhancements aren’t required, in what time frame they would be and helps direct investment to where it is most required to provide maximum benefit for customers. Assurance is also an important timetable modelling activity, assessing whether enhancement designs deliver the required timetable benefits before they are committed to delivery.

Douglas went on to explain the advantages a timetable led approach to enhancement project development can bring from a cost, time, and evidence perspective through case studies, and how it can help the industry realise the benefits of enhancement projects. The lecture was followed with some insightful questions from the appreciative audience, which were all expertly and enthusiastically answered by Douglas.

The dinner, which followed at 8pm, was attended by over 300 IRSE members and guests, including past, current, and future

IRSE presidents, and the chief executive of the IRSE. The dinner was of excellent quality and service, and the event was once again a superb networking event with the opportunity for colleagues and friends to meet face-to-face after two years. The IRSE Scottish Section is now working hard to organise the IRSE Convention in September and the IRSE Scottish Section dinner 2023 will be held again in the Marriott Hotel on 9 November 2023.

Special thanks to Council Member Peter Allen and the wider IRSE team for organising this fantastic event.

Confidential Reporting for Safety

Asset issues

Damaged fencing

Tracks

Faulty equipment Level crossing

Maintenance

Vehicles

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

Report hotline ROI: 1800 239 239

Report textline: + 44 7507 285 887

Freepost: CIRAS

We take all genuine health and safety concerns.

Rail Media (190mm x 130 mm half page) Education ads.indd 2

13/04/2022 2022 11:38:48 Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr

7

8

NOTICES

Ukrzaliznytsia: a lifeline to millions

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the nation’s trains have run back and forth, ferrying people from conflict hotspots and transporting humanitarian aid. With internal air travel impossible and roads blocked by military checkpoints, the country’s railway has become its only reliable system of mass transportation.

Not only has the railway kept refugees moving and delivered tonnes of aid, it has also transported troops to frontline cities and, with key southern ports closed by naval blockade, continued to export whatever Ukraine can produce under wartime conditions.

Vital asset Ukraine boasts a highly developed rail network, with approximately 13,990 miles of track. National railway company, Ukrzaliznytsia, is among the largest in the world and, before the war, its freight and passenger transport capabilities played a key role in the country’s economy. The state-owned company is Ukraine’s biggest employer with 231,000 staff across 375,000sq miles of territory. Today, it is vital to the country’s defence and the movement of displaced citizens.

Ukrzaliznytsia has helped the Army by producing anti-tank hedgehogs and, in the early days of the invasion, helped to disrupt railway lines between Russia and Ukraine to cut off important supply routes for the attackers.

Since the war began it has evacuated over 3.5 million people.

At the peak of the evacuation programme, 200,000 people a day were using the railway to travel west. The company made its service free of charge for everyone, giving priority to women and children. Railway stations across Ukraine were turned into help centres, offering food, shelter, and clothes - everything that those travelling from the conflict’s hotspots might need.

The cost But this vast operation has come at a cost. Schedules have to be constantly updated because of Russian attacks; top speeds have been reduced so that, in case of sabotage, accidents are less likely to be fatal; and Ukrzaliznytsia’s leadership team must constantly stay on the move for fear of Russian targeting. This is all without mentioning that over 80 railway employees have been killed since the war began, both on and off duty.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

The fact is that Ukraine’s railway is a prime target for attack.

This truth was hammered home to us in the west by the missile strike on a rail station in Kramatorsk on 8 April, which killed over 59 people, including seven children. Oleksandr Kamyshin, head of Ukrzaliznytsia, called the strike “a deliberate attack on the passenger infrastructure of the railway and the residents of Kramatorsk”.

The future For now, the evacuation programme has become less urgent and Ukrzaliznytsya’s main focus has switched to ensuring the smooth flow of humanitarian aid and material for the war effort.

The longer-term goal of the company is to increase export and customs capacity on the country's western borders. With the country’s southern ports out of action, rail exports via its western borders are vital both to the war effort and to rebuilding the country once the conflict is over, however long that may take.

Britain’s Largest Specialist Transport Union

PAY JUSTICE

for Britain’s Rail Cleaners

RMT – Fighting for the whole Rail Team

Protecting our members’ interests is our priority

Join us today rmt.org.uk

FREEPHONE 0800 376 3706

10

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

P

roviding a train protection system to ensure drivers correctly observe lineside signals has always been difficult to justify in financial terms. The Great Western Railway (GWR) did have a system called ATC (Automatic Train Control) with contact ramps in advance of signals to give the driver an indication whether that signal was at danger or clear.

This was rolled out on the Great Western main lines. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) had a contactless system installed on the London Tilbury and Southend (LTS) route before the Second World War, mainly because of the risk of dense fog in the Thames estuary and the difficulty in seeing signals.

It took the Harrow accident in 1952, with 112 deaths, to force British Rail (BR) to adopt the Automatic Warning System (AWS) across the network even though this took decades to fully implement. It was very similar to the LMS system and was certainly better than nothing.

The main weaknesses were that the system only distinguished between green and any other restrictive aspect, and a warning could be cancelled by the driver before any brake application occurred. Thus, a train closely following other trains in a congested area, and seeing yellow or double yellow signals all the time, would receive a warning which the driver habitually cancelled thus negating a real warning to brake and stop.

These weaknesses and a growing number of Signals Passed at Dangers (SPADs) led BR to investigate an improved Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system in the 1990s. The supply industry offered up several bespoke products and two were purchased for trial, one on the GW main line from London out to Bristol, the other on the Chiltern Line from Marylebone to Banbury. In parallel, BR in conjunction with Redifon, an electronics company primarily in the business of simulation systems, was developing a less expensive system that could enhance the capability of AWS. Neither this nor the proprietary

CLIVE KESSELL

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

systems would be cheap to install nationwide and getting the funding was always going to be a protracted exercise with the government paymasters.

Two subsequent accidents changed everything: Southall in 1997 with seven deaths and Ladbroke Grove in 1999 with 31 deaths, both due to signals being passed at danger. These accidents resulted in public enquiries, requiring an investigation into train protection systems to be undertaken by an independent assessor. Sir David Davies from the Royal Academy of Engineering was appointed to the task. His report took account of the various systems on offer and also the forthcoming ERTMS and its European Train Control System (ETCS) sub system, then under development as a European standard.

The recommendation was to proceed with the short-term deployment of the BR/Redifon system known as TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System), pending ETCS becoming available as a standard product. This was a wise decision as ETCS was never going to be a quick project.

Sir David’s premise being that it might take ten or more years to implement. With hindsight, even this was wishful thinking as only now are main line ETCS projects in the UK beginning to happen. Some signalling suppliers viewed the recommendation with dismay as they had reservations about the integrity of TPWS and, more obviously, a missed opportunity for their order book.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TPWS The system was designed as a low cost add on to AWS that would assist in reducing the number of SPADs. It consists of two sets of inductive grids positioned between the running rails and placed approximately 300 metres apart, the first to detect whether a train is running at too high a speed (the over speed sensor), the second to instigate a full brake application if the train has not slowed sufficiently to stop at a red signal.

TPWS was only fitted at high-risk signals, mainly those where SPADs regularly occurred, or control signals protecting a junction or station.

All remaining signals relied on AWS for their protection. The onboard equipment required a TPWS display in the drivers cab but the interrogator equipment

under the train was designed to fit in the same space envelope that AWS occupied, thus saving significant cost. As such, the system comes in the intermittent category similar to ETCS Level 1. Initially, the system was only truly effective for train speeds up to 60mph and some more traditional signal engineers regarded it as not truly fail safe.

Subsequently, and to overcome the train speed limitation, an enhancement known as TPWS + has been developed with a further set of grids placed around 800 metres before the over speed sensor.

This enables train speeds of up to 125mph to be sensed and monitored, with brake applications made if necessary.

Routes with high line speeds have had signals fitted with this extra precaution.

The result has been very successful and the number of SPADs occurring has been significantly reduced such that these are no longer at the top of the list for accident risks. This has also had the negative effect of making the business case for ETCS deployment that bit more difficult.

Further TPWS development So, what more needs to be done? There is a general recognition that ETCS roll out on main lines will take decades to implement and it is highly likely that it will never happen on secondary and rural routes. Can the benefits of ETCS Level 2 be achieved by further development of TPWS by making it a continuous monitoring system? Thinking within Network Rail certainly suggests this to be possible and a number of initiatives have emerged. Sixty-five options have been considered with analysis reducing these to around five. One such option proposed by Thales was an upgrade to the on-train TPWS to enhance the protection, and early designs have now reached the state of physical trials to prove the practicality and begin to understand the likely cost.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

11

12

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TPWS-CS The ‘CS’ in TPWS-CS stands for Continuous Supervision, meaning that the system will continually monitor the train speed and other elements as well. But how will it do that?

For the onboard equipment, there is already a radio link courtesy of GSM-R. In addition, the train will require a GPS connection, a radar, and an inertial measurement sensor.

The existing TPWS display − Driver Machine Interface (DMI) − will be adapted to accommodate the new information to be shown.

Infrastructure elements are also needed, these being, first, a ‘state of the railway compiler’ (SoRC), primarily to interrogate the signalling interlockings in the area and which will be located in a convenient trackside equipment room. The SoRC is also an output of the Network Rail options analysis through work with Park Signalling.

Second, there will be a series of trackside processors also located in trackside equipment rooms, which will connect to

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

the SoRC and communicate with the on-board systems via GSM-R. Through a combination of these three ideas − upgraded TPWS, the SoRC and the trackside processor − a combined system can be created with comparable benefits to ETCS Level 2 without the full complexity.

As the train progresses on its journey, the information gleaned from the interlockings will enable a Movement Authority to be generated which will not be shown to the driver who remains observing the lineside signals. This

authority will take account of signal aspects, train speed, speed restrictions, station stops, and junction divergence.

Should the driver not be responding to the required speed, then an alert will be displayed via the TPWS DMI and, if not responded to, braking will occur. The behaviour of this system would be aligned with how one would expect an ETCS Level 2 system to behave. The main objective of this system is therefore to enable a continuous background supervision against a movement authority which is

13

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS protected via the existing TPWS on the trains. This may lead to defensive driving techniques being able to be avoided and provide performance improvements. This potential performance improvement is currently being modelled.

In addition, the availability of data from the sensors included in the onboard system could enable new applications, such as detection of track or lineside irregularities and the potential for supervised movement authorities within worksites to improve track worker safety.

Testing the system One requirement that triggered the initial initiative to introduce these sensors was the existence of user worked level crossings (UWCs) on lines with long block sections. If a member of the public rang to ask if it was safe to cross, the exact whereabouts of a train gave the signaller a dilemma as to whether to grant permission.

Calculating a continuous train position using only on-board sensors provides a potential solution to this problem and when investigated it was quickly realised that such a facility would have many other benefits.

To date, a Class 143 Pacer train has been equipped but since these are no longer in normal passenger service, a Class 150 DMU from Great Western has also been fitted, which will be the concept proving train. In 2022, a set of demonstrations of some of the additional applications is planned on the heritage West Somerset Railway as this can be carried out in non-traffic periods without the need

for a main line possession.

Additionally, while the fitted Class 150 is operating in normal passenger service the installed system will be monitored to understand how the upgraded TPWS-CS would behave.

Commercial considerations The business case is evolving.

The advantages of having a continuous monitoring system can be seen but the financial benefit is more difficult to quantify. The basic trackside TPWS system will remain as is, but once fleets are fitted both safety and operational benefits begin to be unlocked. The cost of fitting the train fleet will be an important factor but using the existing TPWS hardware and on-board positioning sensors will help keep costs down.

The normal process of equipping a ‘first in class’ to learn what has to be done will pave the way, whereafter fleet fitment can commence. The initial emphasis is expected to be on secondary and rural

routes as these are never likely to have ETCS. A broad order estimate for the appropriate fleets is significantly less costly than a full ETCS deployment.

A big advantage over ETCS where signals have been removed, is that trains not equipped with CS can still operate on any route using the existing TPWS protection.

Fitting the infrastructure will also need to be determined and negotiating with Network Rail to keep these costs at an acceptable level, particularly the interfacing to existing signalling assets, could be a deciding factor.

This will be an interesting initiative to see how and if it develops. Network Rail is reported as keen to push on with it or something similar, so Rail Engineer will keep a watchful eye.

Thanks are expressed to Trevor Rolfe and Trish Shanahan from Thales for explaining the system proposal.

PHOTO: COLDSNOWSTORM

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

14

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

CLIVE KESSELL

An Update on

TRACK TO TRAIN RADIO

T

he role of track to train radio communications is becoming ever more important. The early networks of the 1970-80s have long been replaced by GSM-R, a standard that has been adopted on an international scale. However, this is 2G technology which is outdated and has been overtaken in the public mobile networks by more modern developments now centred around 5G. Whilst GSM-R is serving the railways well and has enabled European Train Control System (ETCS) to be introduced as the future train control system, the radio link now needs to be replaced. The future will be Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) and has been under development for some while. The project will be a technical, financial and logistics challenge and will involve both infrastructure and rolling stock.

A recent paper delivered to the IRSE London & South East section by Dan Mandoc, provided an update on the progress achieved to date with a list of the work still to do. Dan is the leader within the Union Internationale Chemins de Fer (UIC) based in Paris, so the project is being undertaken with the intention of it being adopted throughout Europe and beyond.

Background to the project GSM-R was initially designed to replace national track-to-train radio systems that provided driver to signaller voice communication plus some data messaging, but also to provide communication to trackside workers and information systems on platforms.

Interoperability across borders was an important element for trains in Europe travelling from one country to another where a common radio system would be invaluable.

It was always envisaged that GSM-R would be the bearer for ETCS and this has been achieved.

However, the data limitations of 2G have meant using General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) in order to get sufficient message throughput in high rail traffic areas.

GSM-R is now installed on 130,000km of railway but expanding the system to provide other facilities is not possible. The system was designed primarily by collaborative efforts of the railway undertakings, working closely with the European Telecoms Standard Institute (ETSI) to develop the special requirements of the railway within the overall GSM standard. The supply industry has guaranteed support until 2035 but the intention is to switch over to FRMCS by 2030.

The vision for FRMCS As well as providing all the present facilities for voice communication, emergency calls, as an ETCS bearer, the new standard will

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS incorporate the Internet of Things (IoT), smart maintenance opportunities and total wireless connectivity as part of the new specification.

Three main elements are included within the overall project: User Requirements; System Architecture; and Frequency Spectrum Availability.

The specification will broadly be based on the 3rd Generation Partnership Programme (3GPP) principles (the 3GPP was set up in 1988 to create Technical Specification Groups and their scope and terms of reference, one such group being FRMCS), including mission critical applications. The migration strategy will be all important as this must cover both the lineside transmitting infrastructure, the control centre tasks and associated screen presentations to signallers and controllers, and the onboard train equipment. During the changeovers, assurances must be given for the continuity of ETCS, otherwise the entire train service will be put at risk.

Five groups have been established to look at functionality, system architecture, technical design, spectrum negotiations, onboard space and adherence to the 3GPP principles. To address all of these, a centralised ETSI Technical Committee has been set up populated by railway engineers, European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) members, and the various stakeholders including the supply industry. The committee reports to UIC HQ. Major challenges have been identified some of which are: quality of service; ETCS bearer independence; interoperability; spectrum availability across countries; equipment design; cyber security; transition from old to new; cost effectiveness; and multi applications.

User requirements These are many and not all are listed here. The most significant ones come in three categories: » Critical Communications, which includes: on train communication between controller and driver; communication to trackside workers; railway emergency communication; public emergency calls to typically police, fire, ambulance; monitoring and control of critical infrastructure; voice recording and access to recordings; and train integrity monitoring. » Business Communications, which includes: information help point for public enquiries; WiFi for on train passengers; WiFi for passengers on platforms. » Critical Support Applications, which includes: the provision of assured data communications for such as ETCS; safety application key management for ETCS set up; facilitation for both Automatic Train Protection (ATP) and Automatic Train Operation (ATO); authorisation of communication; and location information of trains.

Many of these requirements exist within the GSM-R specification but many other items have now been added. These requirements need to be understood by many non-railway people globally and not just by railway engineers.

Technical decisions A key decision is that FRMCS will be based on 5G. That seems obvious in today’s world but remember that the work to develop the new standard dates back to the time when 4G was the up-and-coming spec, with 5G being little more than a development envisaged for the future. With that in mind, consideration is being given as to how any 6G or future spec could be built into the specification.

Similarly, the latest 3GPP R17 spec for mission critical services is being used but recognising that an update to R18 will happen before widespread roll out takes place. Multicast gateways will in future be by software solutions not requiring hardware changes. Alliances with all the major radio system suppliers are forming under the controlling eye of ETSI.

Spectrum allocation Always a sensitive subject and harkening back to the long hours agreeing the frequency allocations for GSM-R. Currently, harmonised pairs of frequencies are allocated for rail use, these being 874.4 - 880.0 MHz in one direction and 919.4 - 925.0MHz in the other. Assurance has been given that these will remain valid when the changeover from GSM-R to FRMCS takes place. An additional 1.6MHz of spectrum is to be added to this allocation in recognition of the additional features now required plus the promise of 10MHz in the 1900MHz band for future developments.

The presumption is thus made that the railways will have sufficient spectrum to cover all foreseen requirements without the need to share frequencies with other users or indeed the public mobile providers. It remains to be seen whether all this materialises in the fullness of time.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

15

16

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS 5G Rail This is now the formalised title of the project. The scope and status determination began in November 2020 with a 30-month duration timescale, thus expecting it to be completed in 2023. Ten work packages are within the framework to define all relevant technical detail and framework testing. The intent is to develop first prototypes in the laboratory, then on nominated test tracks which will include a cross border link.

To date the project is seen as being on schedule but a formal meeting between the interested parties is due to happen in April 2022 when a review of progress will be undertaken. Eighteen potential suppliers will be part of this, noting that the first prototypes are already in the laboratory testing stage.

The planning of 5G Rail will cover all the anticipated stages with the first live implementation due to be implemented in 2026. Already the specifications are migrating from v1 in 2019 to a proposed v2 due in 2023 and then to the European trial by 2025. So critical is the project in support of rail operations that it cannot afford for mistakes to be made.

Boundaries and access 5G Rail has to exist alongside other 5G developments so will be approached by consideration of Railway Applications - Service Stratum - Transport Stratum. Clearly, the project must embrace more than pure rail usage and how FRMCS can be accessed by the travelling public, and other third parties engaged in the supply of rail services, must be part of the system design. Engagement with the suppliers will be important in understanding how all of this is going to fit together.

Some infrastructure sharing is anticipated but exactly how remains to be researched. Teaching telecom people the ins and outs of railways and, conversely, teaching railway people the structure of telecoms will be part of the learning and development process.

Implementation, duplication and cost A major challenge will be how to migrate from GSM-R to FRMCS. Clearly this cannot happen overnight, and lengthy periods of duplicated operation will have to happen. This is most likely to impact on the infrastructure where additional transmitting stations (including radiating cable in tunnels) will be required especially if the 1900MHz band is utilised. All of this will require additional landline connectivity and power supplies.

The position with the onboard train radio looks more hopeful. The new generation of train mobiles as developed in the UK by Siemens Mobility at their Poole premises, have a 4G capability in addition to GSM-R. The company have confirmed that the radio is capable of adaptation to 5G which will mean the train radios will not need replacing when FRMCS begins to roll out. Quite what modification / re-programming will be required is currently unknown.

Already, these new radios have many of the user requirements in place within the design including provision for Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) and real time train monitoring. However, the question as to how trains will pick up either system in a seamless manner is unclear but, in all of this, uninterrupted operation of ETCS must be guaranteed.

The cost of FRMCS is being developed as a business case but it is not going to be cheap in actual terms. An estimate of €25 billion is being put forward for all of Europe but, in context, the building of a new high speed line with new tunnels and bridges would be much more than this. Whatever, this project must happen as the continuance of GSM-R into the future is not possible. While much work has taken place over the past four years, there remain a lot of unknowns still to be resolved. Rail Engineer will keep a close watchful eye on the future.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Careers with Amey Consulting

Our team of designers, engineers and consultants are transforming the way we design and operate strategic assets, providing collective creativity to our clients to keep the country moving and support economic growth.

Do you enjoy solving real-life problems?

Are you inspired to create a positive impact on society?

Do you want to work flexibly in a way that empowers you?

To find your next role visit: amey.co.uk/ameyconsulting It’s where you feel valued and alive

18

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

PAUL DARLINGTON

South Wales Metro: signalling and telecoms innovation

T

he South Wales Metro (Metro De Cymru) is an integrated heavy rail, light rail, and bus-based public transport services and systems network under construction in South East Wales, around the hub of Cardiff Central. The project includes a brand-new depot at Taff’s Well, new trains, the electrification of the Core Valley Lines, new stations, and many other exciting new developments. This includes a new 10Gbit telecoms network which will be the heart and veins of the Metro, and which will deliver some new innovations. Rail Engineer recently met up with Alick McLeod, Amey Consulting Rail technical director (telecoms) who is leading the telecoms design assurance, to hear about the design and implementation.

Major investment

Fibre and IP routers

Three-quarters of a billion pounds is being invested to upgrade the railway lines to Aberdare, Coryton, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Treherbert, also known as the Core Valley Lines Metro. An integrated bus, rail, cycling and walking sustainable, integrated transport network is being created, to provide betterconnected journeys, reduced journey times, and a greener way to travel. The new rolling stock will be a fleet of Stadler FLIRT innovative trimode multiple units, capable of diesel, electric, or battery traction.

The stations will include CCTV, ticket machines, and customer information systems. Along with robust communications for electrification and signalling control, all requires a flexible, high capacity, resilient, and converged telecoms data network. Transport for Wales (TfW) also wishes to have the option to provide telecoms links for the public benefit along the Valley Lines for social and economic purposes.

On completion, the project will improve the railway for the 1.5 million people who live and work in the Cardiff Capital Region with improved journey times and increased train frequency (from two trains per hour to four) on each of the Core Valley Line routes. From a depot at Treforest, TfW, Siemens Mobility, Amey Infrastructure Wales, Motion, Balfour Beatty and Allun Griffiths are working to deliver the project, which will include 50 new signals, over 300 axle counter sections and 98 signalling location cases in addition to the telecoms network and overhead electrification.

All the existing Core Valley Lines infrastructure is being transferred from Network Rail to TfW. An exception is the GSM-R radio and Fixed Telecoms Transmission FTN networks and interconnecting fibre cables, because they are part of the Network Rail telecoms network and cannot be easily divided. The telecoms equipment rooms however have transferred to TfW, with Network Rail having the right to access the rooms and Network Rail will continue

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

to provide GSM-R radio coverage to TfW as a managed service. Currently, all the station customer information, Ticket Vending Machines and security (CCTV) systems are connected by expensive third party, leased, telecoms services, but this will change.

To support all the new Core Valley Lines telecoms requirements, including station information and CCTV, a new converged Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) 10Gbit IP network and a 432-fibre cable network is being provided.

In an IP network, MPLS uses ‘labels’ attached to the front of each packet to specify a virtual path for the IP packets to follow

through the routing network.

MPLS provides better latency for time critical applications, such as voice and video, and signalling related Solid State Interlocking (SSI), along with Virtual Private Network (VPN) capability for security. The label switching is done in hardware, rather than using software routing tables as in ‘normal’ IP. MPLS also provides Class of Service (CoS) to differentiate between time critical, high priority traffic (such as railway signalling) and delay tolerant, low priority traffic.

The network is being installed in stages, so some parts of the network will be connected by leased fibre (leased from

Network Rail Telecom) until all the new TfW fibre is installed.

To provide diversity of telecoms connections, the head of each valley will be connected by a 10Gbit ‘ring closure’ leased connection from a public telecoms operator. Similarly, in addition to 2 x separate and diverse TfW owned fibre cable spurs, a leased line telecoms connection will be provided to the integrated control centre at Taff’s Well to increase the availability of the telecoms network. A telecoms network management control centre will also be provided at Taff’s Well.

Security Cyber security has been taken very seriously during the development stage of the project, as attempts to retrofit security solutions will almost certainly fail. A thorough threat analysis has been undertaken to consider both internal and external threats. Statistically, a network is more likely to be attacked from within rather than outside an organisation via disgruntled employees.

The potential Metro network.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

19

20

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS The MPLS-VPN for operational data is one mitigation against security threats, however a VPN alone is not designed for security so ‘defence in depth’ and additional measures, such as compliance with standards such as ISO/IEC 27000, ISA/IEC 62243, IEC 62531, BS EN 50159, and the provision of robust firewalls are also being put in place.

A firewall is, in effect, a filter blocking unwanted network traffic and placing limitations on the amount and type of communications with other networks. All firewalls must be maintained and kept up to date, so a process is being established to ensure they are kept up to date in real time.

Having a 10Gbit telecoms network also means high quality station CCTV can be provided and comprehensive coverage of the network and stations has been included as part of the project.

No more copper The 432-fibre cable consists of 36 ribbons of 12 fibres, which is more than enough to support the Core Valley Lines railway, so individual ribbons can be used to provide the local communities with ‘dark’ fibre or leased bandwidth from the IP network of routers and switches for social and economic purposes. Individual fibre ribbons will also be used

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

for certain operational telecoms services, such as electrification control. The fibre cable, routers and switches used in the network will all be proven and approved for use on the main line network.

A traditional railway telecoms network will consist of trunk fibre and transmission equipment, along with twisted pair copper telecoms cables to provide local distribution to applications such as signal post and level crossing telephones.

On an AC electrified railway, the copper cables will have to be immunised from induced voltages from the overhead catenary using aluminium screening conductors running alongside the copper cables, and careful bonding. This is expensive, both to provide and maintain, and is a major risk from being stolen. However, the Core Valley Lines telecoms network is being designed so that no long-distance copper cables and immunisation will be required.

There are currently approximately 200 lineside telephones used on the Core Valley Lines, but this will be reduced by 95%. The remaining 10 operational telephones and public telephones for User Worked Crossings will be designed to be Voice over IP (VoIP) instruments connected either by GSM radio, or via short Cat 5 cables to an IP node. The case to remove the majority of signal post and points telephones has been made by ensuring there is adequate GSM-R and public GSM radio coverage (via the 4x Mobile Network Operators with

multi-network SIM cards fitted to mobile telephones) at all operational locations requiring communications.

The control centre at Taffs Well is being provided with a Cisco Unified Communications Manager (CUCM) for operational communications.

This is a software-based IP call agent platform provided

by Cisco Systems and is also known as Call Manager.

Call Manager provides telephony features and capabilities to packet telephony network devices such as IP phones, media processing devices, VoIP gateways, and multimedia applications.

It provides the operators with modern state of the art communication services, such as unified messaging, multimedia conferencing, collaborative contact centres, and interactive multimedia response systems.

It also has a suite of integrated voice applications and utilities, including an ad-hoc conferencing application, Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis and reporting tool, Real-Time Monitoring Tool (RTMT) and Tool for Auto-Registered Phone Support (TAPS).

More Amey innovation A new Programable Logic Controller (PLC) depot solution has been developed for the Taffs Well depot. Amey Consulting Rail, Sella Controls, and Hima have been working for five years to develop a PLC safety case, and a partnership agreement for the introduction of the Hima PLC product into the UK has been agreed. Amey is now

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS looking to develop a number of options and solutions using the Hima PLC, including control of the Taffs Well depot, using a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) control screen solution.

Other applications for the UK, such as interlockings, level crossings, and other signalling applications are also being developed.

Many railways are therefore looking to introduce COTS equipment. However, COTS equipment for signalling does need careful consideration as equipment designed for another industry or application may not deliver the required safety or performance requirements. This can be especially important for the rail industry, given the harsh vibration, extended operating temperatures, and electrical interference characteristics often found lineside and in rolling stock.

PLCs are widely deployed in other manufacturing and control system industries, and are rapidly becoming used for signalling. It is important that such systems use an open and flexible, but secure, data communication protocol, like the Core Valley Lines telecoms network, to support any future additional features and configuration.

Proven for use Hima PLC devices are already proven for use in a variety of railway applications in other countries. These include interlockings, level crossings, and remote-control safe train movement systems. Unlike proprietary safety technology, the Hima COTS PLCs are standardised products but with SIL 4 approval (Safety Integrity Level 4 – the highest level).

This allows Amey to develop their own SIL 4 applications conforming to UK signalling principles much more easily.

The safety cases are built around Network Rail standards, BS/EN standards, and the Common Safety Method - Risk Evaluation and Assessment (CSM-RA) approach.

Amey had been looking at a number of PLC suppliers for some time, but Hima stood out as its PLC had been used throughout Europe for many level crossings and interlockings, and has been adopted in the Netherlands as a major interlocking solution.

The Hima PLC has also been used in Austria, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, Greece, South Africa, and Australia. In the UK, the PLC has been also been approved for a correct side door enable and emergency

traction discharge control in London Underground. Being already certified for SIL 4 for railway signalling helped in the acceptance of the safety cases. The PLC units come as interlocking and object controller units, so will be familiar to most signalling designers.

Summary The new innovative telecoms network is key to electrifying the key valley routes north of Cardiff. The electrification will bring all the benefits of electric trains, such as faster acceleration, greater comfort and cleaner, greener travel, as well as greater reliability, to the rail users in South Wales.

The area’s dense rail network plays a vital economic and social role, providing important links between settlements in South Wales. The Metro scheme is predicted to have a significant effect on the economy of Cardiff and the Valleys – deepening labour markets, improving connectivity and enhancing the attractiveness of the area to investors.

Thanks to the team at Transport for Wales and The Craidd alliance partners.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

21

22

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Digital Railway signalling IN THE NORTH WEST

PAUL DARLINGTON

O

ver the last few years, we have heard a lot about the ‘Digital Railway’, but what has been delivered to create the digital signalling railway? We look at the delivery of schemes featuring state-of-the-art digital systems in the North West.

It may seem that not much has happened to create the Digital Railway European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) in Great Britain but in the background a lot has been going on, such as the creation of Rail Operating Centres (ROCs), like the one in Manchester.

ERTMS is the European signalling and speed control system that ensures interoperability of the national railway systems, reduces the

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

purchasing and maintenance costs of signalling, increases the speed of trains, signals more trains, and provides better safety. It comprises the European Train Control System (ETCS) – a cab-signalling system that incorporates automatic train protection – and Global System for Mobile communications for Railways (GSM-R). GSM-R has been delivered, along with a national fixed digital telecoms network to provide digital connectivity.

Interoperability Work is underway to deliver ETCS on the East Coast Main Line and Network Rail has just published the industry’s first Digital Railway signalling specification suite.

This is a set of standards and documentation to drive interoperability in the deployment of ETCS technologies for the whole GB main line network. The specification suite will support the Network Rail regions and train operators in unlocking improvements on reliability, efficiency, safety, and capacity for both passenger and freight.

The scope of the Digital Railway, as mandated by the Department for Transport (DfT), comprises Traffic Management Systems (TMS), ETCS Level 2, Connected Driver Advisory System (C-DAS), and associated enabling systems, all controlled from the ROCs. In January, Siemens’ test and commissioning manager, Gordon McGadie, and principal test engineer, Kevin Heath gave a presentation to the IRSE on the Manchester ROC (MROC).

Gordon and Kevin explained that control of the railways in the North West has gone through a huge transformation in the last eight years, with

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

major areas such as Blackpool, Bolton, and Liverpool all coming under central control of MROC. Siemens and its engineering teams have been at the heart of this transformation and have successfully delivered a number of highprofile signalling schemes.

Rail Operating Centres From the early 1990s through to 2015, ROCs were introduced onto Network Rail’s infrastructure to take over from the existing signal boxes. Network Rail’s aspiration in 2011 was to close around 40% of the 845 signal boxes on the network by 2020. While this has not been achieved, within the North West there has been considerable resignalling and recontrol work.

As of today, there are 14 ROCs on the GB network, which opened as follows: Ashford 1993, Gillingham 1994, Saltley 2003, Edinburgh 2006, Cowlairs 2008, Derby 2008, Cardiff 2010, Didcot 2010, Manchester 2014, Three Bridges 2014, York 2014, Basingstoke 2016, Romford 2016, and Rugby 2016.

A central signalling control was originally proposed for Manchester in British Rail days and was going to be built near to where MROC is now. Railtrack did not progress the construction of a large central control centre and instead built smaller control centres, such as Manchester North and Ditton.

Eventually, Network Rail built MROC in 2014.

MROC’s opening coincided with the award of signalling renewals within the North West to Siemens, with an ambitious plan of re-signalling schemes and the re-control of signal boxes and

interlockings into MROC. Siemens undertook a significant recruitment campaign and opened a new office, Manchester One, in the heart of the city. Network Rail aspired to introduce new technologies to all the new schemes to provide a future-proof, reliable railway, and the foundation for future ETCS role out.

Control of the railways The opening of MROC coincided with Huyton to Roby re-signalling works in the Liverpool area, with the closure of Huyton Signal Box, and the Liverpool Workstation being the first to be introduced into MROC, along with a Westcad Controlguide. This was a VDU based system with a Trackguard Westlock ComputerBased Interlocking (CBI) and Trackside Function Modules (TFMs) connected via Network Rail’s Fixed Telecoms Network (FTN) to Frauscher axle counters.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

23

24

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS Signalling intervention

Siemens Mobility Limited is based in Chippenham with its R&D and manufacturing facilities, and its signalling equipment for the UK is made in this country. Chippenham has continuously been a centre of railway signalling manufacture since 1894, most famously as the home of Westinghouse Brake & Signal Company Ltd throughout most of the 20th Century. The signalling part of the business is now Siemens Mobility but many of its signalling product names still start with ‘West’.

FTN is a nationwide, resilient, digital multi-channel transmission on fibre and some copper cables and was originally provided to support the GSM-R radio network and operational telecoms.

Subsequently, an additional optical network (FTNx) has been constructed with routers to support the increasing usage of IP enabled devices. Both FTN and FTNx are now used for all railway telecom and data requirements, including links for signalling and electrification power control.

In February 2015, while not initially effecting MROC, an additional cross-over and platform was installed at Manchester Airport controlled from Manchester Piccadilly Power Signal Box (PSB). This affected the existing SSI for Heald Green, along with Heald Green Panel at Manchester Piccadilly PSB, and with new locations and TFMs for new signalling assets.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

April 2015 saw the first major signalling intervention of the programme with the re-control of four SSIs from the existing Entrance/Exit (NX) panel at Manchester North Signalling Centre to MROC. All four SSIs remained at Manchester North equipment room controlled via a Westcad Remote Interface cubicle (RIF) which communicates via FTN between the SSIs and two new Westcad VDUs (Manchester Central and Manchester North Workstations) at MROC. The RIF cubicle was a new technology at the time and only a minor amendment to the SSI Panel Processor Modules (PPMs) was required to enable all four SSIs to be re-controlled to MROC. In November 2015, Crewe Gresty Lane Panel and a CBI Westlock was delivered at Crewe. This was a new entry / exit (NX) panel replacing the existing life-expired relay interlocking and signal box, as well as a new Westlock CBI interfacing to the new panel via a panel multiplexer. These works were supported by the Crewe PSB panel renewal scheme which moved the life expired NX panel into another room at Crewe PSB, making room for the new Gresty Panel. All signalling assets were controlled via TFMs which communicated via a copper telecoms cable to the CBI via FTN. Because of the

technologies used, the Gresty Lane signalling can be easily re-controlled into the MROC when required as part of the signalling strategy for the North West.

April and December 2016 saw Salford and Victoria SSIs replaced; both Windsor Bridge and Manchester Piccadilly PSB interlockings reduced to facilitate a new signalling system from Deansgate through to Salford Crescent via Ordsall; new signalling from Victoria station (west side) up to Salford Crescent; and re-controlling of the east side of Victoria (Victoria SSI) onto a Trackside Interface (TIF).

Major alterations Three new Trackguard Westlocks were introduced at Salford, Ordsall, and Castlefield, along with one new Westcad VDU workstation at Oxford Road. Major alterations to the existing Manchester Central Workstation took place, along with the re-control of two Route Relay Interlockings (RRI) (Oxford Road and Trafford Park), including Relay Interface Time division multiplex Application (RITA) data and a new Automatic Route Setting (ARS) system was interfaced to both workstations (Oxford Road and Manchester Central).

All trackside signalling equipment was still interfacing to SSI TFM via copper cables and FTN to the CBI, although Frauscher axle counters were

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

introduced, interfacing via relays to TFMs to the CBI. During the commissioning blockade, Manchester Piccadilly RRI was substantially altered across the fringe to Oxford Road. This was believed to be one of the largest alterations to an RRI undertaken in the past 20 years.

This was also the first time a managed network was brought into use in the MROC, which saw all signalling cubicles in the equipment room communicating to each other, as well as the two remote RRIs sitting on the network. This was the first positive step in providing a more robust and secure network with appropriate cyber security measures.

Immunisation works Easter and August 2017 saw immunisation works to support electrification. Euxton SSI, located at Preston PSB, was extended all the way to Blackrod RRI with alterations to the panel. These works were required to allow overhead line equipment to be installed and commissioned within the area, and therefore an AC immune system was required.

The August phase of this scheme saw the re-modelling, re-development, and re-signalling of Bolton station, with Bolton RRI replaced with a new Westlock based at MROC. This meant no additional training was required as the CBI would be maintained and monitored by the technicians already based at MROC. A new panel was required at Manchester Piccadilly to support the re-signalling which interfaced to MROC via a RIF cubicle. This was similar to how the Manchester North SSIs were interfaced to MROC. All new signalling was provided from Bolton station to Windsor Bridge, and significant change to Windsor Bridge RRI was also undertaken. To support both the re-signalling and immunisation aspects of the scheme, all the existing assets from Bolton station to Blackrod were re-controlled onto the Westlock. All signalling assets were controlled via TFMs by a copper telecoms network via FTN to MROC. Bolton was also on a managed network, so was part of the maintenance network backbone within MROC.

Ordsall Chord September 2017 saw the completion and the commissioning of the Ordsall Chord, the new line to connect the railway to the south of the city to Manchester Victoria. While only a minor signalling stage, compared to other bridge and track works that had to be undertaken as part of this scheme, this was as major milestone due to the enormity of the civils work and the high-profile commissioning of the Chord to allow traffic from Manchester Piccadilly via the Castlefield Corridor to Manchester Victoria.

These works were added onto the existing Salford and Ordsall Westlocks, so that all the ‘principal testing’ data had to be tested offsite before the commissioning and the scheme delivered in a short 54-hour period. This also affected both Manchester Central and Oxford Road workstations which were updated to include the new signalling.

All signalling assets were controlled by existing REBs and location cases brought into use during the Christmas 2016 works. All works associated with the Ordsall chord were designed as final and back-engineered to deliver each stage.

This meant minimal impact and changeover was required, as all line side equipment had been pre-wired and was ready for the lineside cabling to be connected.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

25

26

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS Blackpool March 2018 saw the commissioning of Blackpool re-signalling and immunisation works. This was a significant piece of work in the North West, which saw the railway closed for 20 weeks during the winter months to provide a brand-new signalling system and fully electrified line from the main at Preston to Blackpool North.

The scheme closed five mechanical signal boxes, Blackpool North, Poulton, Carleton Level Crossing, Kirkham, and Salwick, replacing them with one new Westcad workstation at MROC controlled via two new Westlock interlockings. All signalling was controlled via TFMs on a copper telecoms backbone and fibre via FTN, with the axle counters interfacing to the CBI via relays and TFMs. Blackpool workstation also saw Carleton LX re-controlled into MROC with a brand-new touch screen level crossing unit. Again, Blackpool Westlock sat on a managed network interface to the secure MROC maintenance network.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Weaver to Wavertree The Weaver to Wavertree route runs from the West Coast Main Line, south of Warrington at Weaver Junction, to Wavertree in the Liverpool direction. The scheme goes back to BR days nearly 30 years ago, but May 2018 saw the commissioning of the first phase of the successful Weaver to Wavertree scheme, with the re-signalling of the Halton Junction signal box area.

This was the first introduction of Westrace Trackside System Trackguard (WTS), with 110V SOMs being introduced on an IP fibre-based telecoms (FTNx) and signalling network, with a fully managed IP-based network both at the interlocking (MROC) and trackside. It was also the introduction of the Axle Counter Processor (ACP) that directly interfaced to the Westlock via Westrace Processor Modules (PMs) and communicated directly to the axle counters via their evaluators with no other interface.

This provided many challenges, such as upskilling staff (fibre installation and testing, network testing) and support from Network Rail in updating documentation (Signalling Installation Handbook, Signalling Works Testing Handbook, and Signalling Maintenance Specifications) to provide the necessary information and paperwork for the lifecycle of the signalling system.

There were also other issues associated with trying to implement a new signalling system, such as general fault finding, knowledge of components, and usage of new installation/testing equipment.

This also included supporting other offices around the country which were implementing WTS at later stages for lessons learnt and best practice.

Trafford Park August 2021 saw the commissioning of the Trafford Park re-signalling scheme which replaced the life-expired Trafford interlocking with a new FEP area, connecting it onto the existing Castlefield CIP, and included a new axle counter processor, with all new line side signalling assets. Amendments to the existing Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Central Westcad workstations were also undertaken, with updates to the ARS systems.

The commissioning was delivered over a 72-hour period. It was achieved in tight timescales due to Westlock, Westrace, and Frauscher data being tested off site, as well as the full network being replicated to allow network testing, with a significant number of signalling assets fully through-tested and all axle counters fully corresponded prior to the commissioning.

In summary, since the building of the MROC in 2014 it has expanded, with seven new workstations and 11 Westlock

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS CBI interlockings commissioned, as well as four SSIs and two RRIs re-controlled into the MROC. As a result, this has improved the railways in the North West providing better reliability, more trains for passengers, easier maintenance, lower costs, better cyber security, and the foundation for ETCS. From the ambitious original scheme list, only Warrington PSB and Manchester Piccadilly PSB re-control, and the resignalling of Manchester Oxford Road have not been delivered due to budget reductions.

Future schemes Over the next five years MROC is planned to expand even further, with a possible five new workstations and seven Westlock CBI interlockings, as well as expanding existing workstations and Westlocks to create more MROC control. These include: » Re-signalling and re-modelling from Manchester Victoria station to Bagley Fold.

This will affect the existing Salford and Clayton Westlock and a new Miles Platting Westlock, with the signalling being controlled across the Manchester Central and North Workstations.

This will also include the first Manually Controlled Barrier with Obstacle Detection (MCBOD) level crossing in the MROC. » Macclesfield - This will see a new Westcad workstation and a new Westlock. » Crewe Hub - Phase 1 with two new workstations and two new Westlocks. Further phases could include a further two new workstations and three new Westlocks, along with Gresty Lane being transferred to MROC.

» The recently announced £84 million funding from DfT, part of the Manchester Recovery Task Force’s (MRTF) plan to improve reliability across the region, to resignal the Castlefield Corridor, and the remodelling of Manchester Oxford Road station.

Similar ETCS ready schemes have taken place all over the network at other ROCs and much has been undertaken to create Digital Railway signalling. There is still much to do though with many mechanical signal boxes still in service. For example, Monks Sidings near Warrington dates from 1875 and is likely to be in use until the end of the decade.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

27

28

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

CLIVE KESSELL

P

lans to replace the traditional mechanical signalling and associated signal boxes in Cornwall have been around for over three decades. In the late 1980s, a proposal to outsource the project to one of the major signalling suppliers was seriously considered by the British Railways Board but was eventually rejected because of the staffing and operational implications.

In the November 2019 edition of Rail Engineer, an article featured some signalling additions to increase the capacity of the railway, so as to meet Cornwall County’s aspiration for an improved service. This involved the provision of additional intermediate block sections and modernisation of some level crossings. It has been very successful but did nothing to renew the ageing signalling infrastructure.

The stumbling block has always been the high cost of standard SSI technology and the lack of funding in Network Rail’s financial control periods. Cornwall was not the only area with this problem and, to meet the challenge, the major signalling suppliers produced low-cost signalling alternatives.

These have been implemented on Crewe-Shrewsbury, ElyNorwich, and the North Wales Coast. With these in mind and some money being available in Control Period (CP) 6, a project has been instigated to renew some of Cornwall’s traditional technology on both the main line and some of the Cornish branches. Rail Engineer held an online interview with both Network Rail and Siemens Mobility to discover what is going to happen.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS The project plan In 2016, a complete resignalling of the lines in Cornwall and West Devon was costed at £200 million. This was deemed too expensive by the ORR but did result in agreement to provide £60 million for the capacity increases referred to earlier.

More recently, and with an additional £40 million budget now available, bids from a number of suppliers were invited to re-signal the sections from Lostwithiel to Truro, and the eastern section of the Plymouth Power Signal Box area over the Hemerdon bank and onwards to Blatchford which is the fringe point to Exeter signalling centre.

The Aster track circuits in this area are causing significant reliability issues with spare parts difficult to obtain.

Subsequently, a contract has been let to Siemens Mobility to carry out the resignalling work and some associated level crossing upgrades.

The present Exeter signalling centre is to become the centralised control point for the West of England and will become a Railway Operations Centre in all but name.

The section from Lostwithiel to Truro will be controlled from a new work station incorporating four or five VDU screens, sited in the Exeter centre. It will mean the closure of Lostwithiel, Par and Truro signal boxes but the same track layouts will be retained, more or less, except for some minor rationalisation. Improving the capacity on the Newquay branch is part of the plan as is the modernisation of two level-crossings on each of the Looe and Gunnislake branches.

The Hemerdon end of the Plymouth panel (the oldest on the network having been commissioned in 1960) will be replaced by a new work station in the power box, incorporating VDU control screens. In the fullness of time and maybe in CP7, further finance will be available to fit the low-cost signalling in the Liskeard area, westwards from Truro to Roskear, St Erth and Penzance, and the eventual closure of Plymouth Power Box.

The scheme in detail Considering first the Hemerdon section, the signals will be replaced using an LED signal head on a lightweight fold down structure in practically the same location as the existing ones. The troublesome track circuits will be replaced with Frauscher axle counters. New cabling will be provided using plug coupled lengths, thus maximising the opportunity for offsite testing.

The western end of Plymouth Power Box will remain unchanged including the intermediate signal section at Menheniot.

Liskeard signal box will stay for the present with its mechanical signalling. The signal section at Largin, with its single line section over two viaducts, and presently controlled from a panel in Lostwithiel box, will transfer to the new work station at Exeter, as will the block section at Bodmin Parkway including the ground frame connection to the Heritage line to Bodmin General.

At Lostwithiel, the junction for the Fowey freight line, the two holding loops for the china clay trains, and the level

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

29

30

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS Additional updates

crossing at the eastern end of the station, will all be controlled from Exeter. The crossing will become CCTV-controlled, with the monitoring screens sited at the Exeter work station. It is anticipated that the downtime of the barriers, a cause of local complaint, can be reduced with this arrangement. The recently installed panel under the capacity enhancement scheme will be capable of reuse elsewhere.

Elsewhere At Par, the junction for the Newquay branch, the signal box will be abolished and the entire layout, including the main line connections to enable through running to the branch, will be put on the Exeter work station. The intermediate block sections at St Austell, Burngullow and Probus will also transfer to Exeter.

Par station will be equipped with a new footbridge and lifts to comply with the disabled access requirements.

Truro signal box will close with transfer of control to Exeter. Currently this box is the busiest on the line, as not only does it have an adjacent level crossing that gives access to the car park but also controls the busy Falmouth branch including the recently installed passing loop at Penryn.

The user-worked crossing at Paradise to the west of Truro will be the extent of the new control area. The station level crossing will be converted to the Obstacle Detection type which will hopefully limit the amount of barrier down time which causes complaint.

Westwards, the intermediate block sections at Chacewater and Redruth will remain under the control of the Roskear panel (on the outskirts of Camborne) which has recently been equipped with a new relay-based interlocking under the capacity increase project. St Erth and Penzance signal boxes stay unchanged.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Branch line improvements As well as the main line, modifications will be made to some of the Cornish branch lines to increase operating flexibility and an improved train service.

The most significant of these will be on the one from Par to Newquay, currently the Cinderella branch in the county with, broadly, a two-hour interval service. The intermediate signal box at Goonbarrow splits the section, after that the branch being ‘One Train Working’.

Only one operational platform exists at Newquay. A passing loop is to be provided at Goss Moor that will enable an hourly service to be introduced. The second platform at Newquay will be brought back into use thus enabling more through trains from beyond Par. The county’s ambition is to create a Mid Cornwall Metro to facilitate more train usage into the areas of greater employment. This will imply the restoration of full signalling throughout, which will be controlled from Exeter.

The Looe branch has two level crossings at Lodge Farm and Terras. These will be converted from open crossings that necessitate the train having to stop before proceeding, to Automatic Barrier Crossing controlled Locally (ABCL) operation, thus providing additional protection as well as speeding up the operation.

From a motorist and pedestrian perception, these are similar to an Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) but are applicable to lower-speed lines. A white light is displayed to the train driver to show that the crossing is functioning correctly.

If the white light is not lit, the train must stop as before. No plans exist at present to remotely control the points at Coombe Junction where the train has to reverse, these having to be operated by the train crew using a local ground frame.

The Gunnislake branch also has open crossings at Okel Tor and Sandways, which will be converted to Automatic Open Crossing controlled Locally (AOCL) which, because of the road layout, cannot realistically be provided with barriers. The AOCL type is equipped with the white light to show correct operation and does require the train to slow but not stop, thus speeding up operations.

On the busy Truro- Falmouth branch, the passing loop installed in recent times at Penryn, which is currently controlled from a small panel in Truro box, will have a renewed interlocking so as to be compatible with the equipment being deployed on the main line upgrade. Such is the level of traffic that an even more frequent service might be required at peak times that could mean a second passing loop being needed in the fullness of time.

No changes are required on the St Ives branch which caters for heavy summer traffic from the park and ride facility located at St Erth.

Technology and communications The modular signalling being provided by Siemens Mobility has at its heart the Trackguard Westrace interlocking. This is effectively a SIL4 PLC (programmable logic controller) supplied from the Siemens Mobility premises at Chippenham. The new modular interlockings will be provided at ‘islands’ where points and control signals exist; broadly speaking, the places where the signal boxes will close.

From the Westrace equipment will run a fibre optic cable plus a 24V DC feed to connect in the Object Controllers (OCs) that will control the local signals, points, axle counters, and any intermediate block sections.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The connections from the interlocking to the OCs will be by plug coupled DiSAF cable, thus enabling testing to be carried out initially in the factory. The tail cables from the OCs to the equipment at the trackside and between the rails will be measured, so getting the right length of cable is an important factor and will be carried out by site surveys. A standby power supply will support each interlocking and a 4-hour battery back-up will be provided for each OC. The new signals will be an LED type. Points will be converted to in bearer clamp locks for movement and locking. For the changes in Plymouth power box, the interlocking will be located at Plymouth with cable links to Laira, where the rolling stock depot exists, and onwards to Hemerdon and the Exeter fringe. The work stations and associated VDUs will be provided from the standard Siemens Mobility product portfolio.

On and off site testing Testing (in the ‘hangar’) will be by interlocking areas (which can be multiple islands) so that once proven, transfer to site and associated installation can commence. Once complete only correspondence testing will be required on site. This off site hangar testing is an important element as it plays a significant role in reducing costs, since rework can be done in the factory. Safety is improved as it removes people from the lineside and programme risk is reduced in terms of knowing that equipment sent to site already works as designed.

Key to all of this modernisation will be the provision of an IP-based transmission system over a fibre network to connect the interlockings back to the control centres. These will be provided by Network Rail Telecoms (NRT) using the nationwide FTNx IP network. This must be fully resilient and comprises several data rings across the country, both for high level data transfer plus smaller rings for local distribution.

The level of resilience in the West Country which is, in essence, a single ended railway is being investigated by NRT engineers. A joint NRT and Western & Wales (NR) team is being set up to determine the number of links required to support the new signalling and whether any enhancement of the ring resilience will be needed. It is now accepted practice for signalling data to be conveyed on the NRT networks, the latter being an essential part of Network Rail infrastructure.

Since the modular concept is already proven in the earlier projects, there is confidence that it will be equally successful down in the west country.

Resources and commissioning plans The project has completed its Governance of Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) 1-4 progression and final details are being worked out for the later GRIP stages. Siemens Mobility has a team of 40 people working on the project plus subcontractors appointed for the provision of power, civil works, and communications. Network Rail has appointed an overall project manager and created a team of 15 project engineers.

The commissioning of the Cornwall section is scheduled for November 2023 and the Hemerdon section for February 2024.

With the experience of the North Wales Coast project, which came in on time and within five percent of budget, the combined team is confident a similar outcome will result in Devon and Cornwall. Being a modular technology, further extensions to the project may well happen in CP7 assuming additional finance is made available.

Rail Engineer thanks Richard Evans from Network Rail and Stephen Mills from Siemens Mobility for explaining the project detail. We will keep a close eye on progress and produce further articles in due course.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

31

34

FEATURE

CLEANER, GREENER TURBOSTARS

MALCOLM DOBELL

T

he class 168 and class 170/171 (hereinafter class 170) ‘Turbostar’ diesel mechanical multiple units were built between 1998 and 2005. In railway terms these trains might be described as being halfway through their lives. But in terms of diesel engine technology and environmental knowledge a lot has happened that now renders their diesel engines highly undesirable.

1998 was around the time that diesel engines for cars were being encouraged as environmentally friendly because they produced less carbon dioxide than the equivalent petrol engines. Indeed, at the time, diesel fuel was cheaper than petrol for road use. Subsequently, as is well known, oxides of nitrogen and fine particulates, a significant by-product of diesel engines, were recognised as serious polluters.

Reducing these pollutants became important.

Clearly, electrification is the best solution with no emissions at point of use, but this will take many years to complete, and there will never be an economic case for electrification on some routes where, ideally, battery or hydrogen-battery power might deliver emissions free solutions.

In the meantime, how might emissions be reduced from the existing diesel trains? At the 2015 Railtex exhibition, diesel engine company

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

MTU (a division of Rolls Royce) displayed a diesel/ battery hybrid raft that could be retrofitted under existing trains. This was exhibited again at Railtex in 2019. At the 2019 exhibition MTU stated that they had been testing hybrid drives in mainland Europe and had achieved fuel savings of between 15 and 25%, adding that they were working with UK leasing company Porterbrook with a view to “trialling this hybrid drive on a Class 170 DMU next year.”

Following the inevitable impact of the Covid pandemic in 2020, it was in May 2021 that Porterbrook reported on tests carried out at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway in Derbyshire with the prototype installation fitted to a 2-car Chiltern Class 168/3 unit. And, in July 2021, to celebrate Chiltern Railways’ 25th anniversary, the prototype was used to carry a number of invited guests to Bicester for a celebration lunch.

The unit achieved speeds of up to 100mph during this demonstration run and operated with emission free battery power into/out of Marylebone and Bicester. The converted train is expected to reduce CO2 by up to 25%, nitrous oxide by up to 70%, particulates by up to 90% and fuel consumption by up to 25%. There was also an expectation that engine noise level will be reduced by 75%.

On 10 February 2022, the train, branded HybridFLEX, carried its first fare paying passengers and Rail Engineer was there for the event. On arrival at Marylebone station, one is immediately reminded that this is the last London terminus to be served by an entirely diesel fleet. There was significant background noise from idling diesel engines on the classes 165/168 multiple units and a class 68 locomotive with a slight whiff of diesel exhaust in the air.

The noise and emissions are of great concern to Marylebone station’s neighbours, a point made strongly by the Westminster City Council member attending the event.

After watching several trains depart accompanied by the characteristic roar from revving engines, two-car unit number 168 329 glided almost silently into the station, illustrating one the benefits of the hybrid drive; quiet and emissions free arrival and departure from stations. Birmingham New Street customers will be envious.

PHOTO: LOUIS SCHMANDT/CHILTERN RAILWAYS

FEATURE

The press launch was introduced by Richard Allen, managing director of Chiltern Railways.

He paid tribute to four years hard work by Chiltern staff and their partners - train owner, Porterbrook, Rolls Royce Power Systems, and Gemini Rail Group - and hoped that this development would be a significant part of Chiltern’s modernisation programme for the 2020s. His points were echoed by representatives from the DfT, Westminster City Council, Porterbrook, and Rolls Royce Power Systems.

ZF EcoWorld gearbox installed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

35

FEATURE (Left) Class 168 driver’s desk. Decelerometer to the lower left of the speedometer.

PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL

PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL

36

(Right) Unit 168 239 arriving at Marylebone.

The conversion The existing MTU engine, Voith gearbox, hydrostatic ancillary power system, and alternator, had to be removed and space cleared for a new MTU engine, ZF gearbox, and the battery packs. The accompanying illustrations show the new equipment layouts, and the table highlights the key existing and new parts.

The braking system had to be modified to enable dynamic as well as friction braking with smooth transition between the braking systems.

Like electric trains with regenerative braking, this operates entirely in the background without the driver having to choose the braking mode.

In addition, for drivers who use the brake cylinder gauge as a reminder of the brake rate applied, a decelerometer has been fitted in the cabs. A new type of driver assistance system, the MTU Intelligent Drive Manager, is being used on this train for the first time. It ensures that the drive system automatically switches off the diesel engines and operates in all-electric mode in areas such as cities or stations which are sensitive to noise or emissions; provided of course that the battery is sufficiently charged.

Porterbrook’s Kevin Bilby observed that there is an extra complication as the six-speed transmission is between the final drive and the electrical machine harvesting power; a challenge that no EMU has to face.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Kevin added that electrical power for train control and ‘hotel loads’ is now derived from a solid-state auxiliary converter driven from the battery - or diesel engine via the electrical machine - in place of the previous mechanically driven alternator. This allows hotel loads to be maintained while the unit is waiting in terminus stations. Current practice is to shut down the diesel engines for environmental reasons but that means hotel loads are lost and passengers joining the train before departure are greeted with emergency lighting only. This is particularly noticeable in some stations such as Birmingham New Street.

The proof of the pudding The key objective of the day was to ride the train and to experience the different characteristics compared with a standard class 170. Anyone familiar with the normal roar as the diesel engine runs up to speed a fraction of a second before a class 170 sets off would have been surprised. The train’s diesel engine was operating, but the departure from Marylebone was smooth and quiet. It was also subjectively quieter than the class 172, which is noticeably quieter than the class 170s.

During the run to the first stop at Harrowon-the-Hill, the diesel engines stopped with a characteristic thump your writer has experienced

FEATURE

Fleet implementation?

For the future, Helen said once the train demonstrates the forecast savings the business case can be built for the conversion of the entire class 168/170 fleet of more than 450 cars, all powered. Developing a compelling

PHOTO: LOUIS SCHMANDT/CHILTERN RAILWAYS

on many hybrid buses. This was the only real disturbance to otherwise smooth progress. In fact, the whole journey was smooth and quiet, and it would be hyper-critical to mention the occasional slight jolt during the transition from dynamic brake to friction brake. In conversation, Helen Simpson, Porterbrook’s Innovation and Projects Director said that these issues will be resolved during the service trials with small changes to the controlling software.

Helen paid tribute to the project team whose work was carried out during the difficult times of Covid. As well as main partners mentioned above there were many other suppliers including the certification organisations, Ricardo as Approvals Body, and SNC Lavalin as the Safety Assessment Body.

With the output of the diesel engine and the electric motor combined, each car has a total power greater than that of a standard class 168.

Whilst it is currently intended that either the diesel or the electric power sources will propel the train, both can be used in ‘boost’ mode to deliver a noticeable reduction in inter-station run time, although there is a limit that can be accommodated by the retained final drive.

Helen added that the performance is normally restricted so that this unit can work in multiple with other Chiltern units. Boost mode increases acceleration, and Chiltern drivers have been trained in its use. The driver training requirement which Chiltern had carried out was quite significant for just one unit even though the unit will mainly be restricted to the MaryleboneAylesbury route as Chiltern want to ensure that any driver on this route can operate the unit.

PHOTO: LOUIS SCHMANDT/CHILTERN RAILWAYS

PHOTO: HELEN SIMPSON/PORTERBROOK

HybridFLEX drive train block diagram .

business case is unlikely to be straightforward.

Currently, the environmental benefits, although welcome, are not valued in business cases, and the direct fuel saving is insufficient benefit to offset the cost of the conversion. There might be project cost savings to be had by scheduling the conversion when powertrain overhaul would otherwise be due, thus saving the overhaul cost. And there might be benefits from the better acceleration of the trains.

(Top) New cardan shaft, existing final drive.

(Bottom) Electric air compressor.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

37

FEATURE

PHOTO: LOUIS SCHMANDT/CHILTERN RAILWAYS

(Right) Engine raft, foreground: engine, background: batteries.

(Inset) The electric motor/ generator.

PHOTO: LOUIS SCHMANDT/CHILTERN RAILWAYS

38

That said, the DfT representative, Jim Richards - Passenger Services Markets Director (South) emphasised the importance of the UK railway playing its part in reducing rail’s environmental impact. He added that reducing environmental impact is a key objective for the new Chiltern contract.

Hopefully this project will lead to all the TurboStar generation trains being converted to hybrid operation delivering a major contribution to reducing emissions and improving air quality around major stations.

Types of hybrid drives There are various forms of diesel battery hybrid drive trains. In some, known as series hybrids, the diesel engine drives a generator which charges a battery which, in turn drives an electric motor which drives the wheels. In braking, the motor generates electricity which charges the battery. Depending on the state of charge, the diesel engine might run at its most efficient setting to charge the battery or might be switched off.

The HybridFLEX unit, fitted to the class 170, is a self-charging diesel-battery parallel hybrid.

The MTU diesel engine drives the rail wheels

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

through a ZF EcoWorld gearbox and the existing bogie mounted final drive. There is also an electric traction motor connected to the input of the gearbox.

The diesel engine can drive the wheels and the motor (as a generator to charge the battery), or the motor can drive the wheels with the diesel engine disengaged. For best performance, both may drive the gearbox. Using both the diesel engine and electric motor together increases the power available compared with a standard class 168/170 unit. Where required, the engine can be switched off, and the train driven solely from the battery. When braking, the wheels drive the motor via the gearbox to charge the battery.

Quality precast concrete manufacturers... for a great range and even greater value Elite Precast Concrete are one of the UK’s leading precast concrete manufacturers combining the highest levels of customer service with always being the best value option.

Our focus is on driving down the cost base and then passing these savings onto our customers. This enables us to provide constant and predictable price structures which in turn underpin our ethos of developing customer relationships over the long term.

Every product we make is cast from the same premium quality, high strength (50N/mm2) concrete.

We were also the first and by far the largest manufacturer of interlocking blocks for various temporary works; fire breaks; retaining, blast and push walls and also, by offering three block types, you can be certain that we have the solution you are looking for.

For more information on Elite quality concrete products phone 01952 588 885 or browse www.eliteprecast.co.uk

40

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

CARMONT

So much to learn (Part one)

I

n March last year, Network Rail published its ‘Resilience of rail infrastructure’ report setting out the actions it was to take following the fatal derailment at Carmont on 12 August 2020. This was accompanied by reports from Lord Robert Mair and Dame Julia Slingo who were, respectively, leading the Earthworks Management and Weather Advisory task forces that Network Rail had set up after the derailment.

New weather digital platform recommended

by Slingo report.

Rail Engineer summarised the findings of Lord Mair’s 543-page earthworks report and Dame Slingo’s 77-page weather report in issue 190 (May/ June 2021). Mair concluded that the dominant reason for earthworks failures is the exposure of over-steep and previously failed slopes to rainfall patterns not previously experienced. It also noted

that expressed pore water pressure was a more important parameter than the soil moisture index used by Network Rail to monitor earthworks. It considered that “predicting exactly where failures will occur is like looking for a needle in a haystack” and noted that a better approach is to “search for the haystacks”, i.e., vulnerable lengths of slope.

Task Force recommendations Mair made 54 recommendations including the importance of: drainage management and design; integrating earthworks, drainage, and vegetation management; improved earthworks asset management using intelligent infrastructure data; and better monitoring technologies to detect failures and predict possible failures.

Dame Slingo’s report noted that using weather data to best manage railway operational risks requires an understanding of how rainfall translates into geohazards, and timely operational decisions can make the best use of forecasts.

Its recommendations included the need for an easily accessible new digital weather platform that integrated all relevant information and professional competencies in meteorology

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

FEATURE and hydrology. She felt a four-stage weather management framework was required which was: Awareness (recognising possible red weather alerts 4-5 days out); Preparation (assign red alerts two days out using kilometre-scale forecasts); Response (alerts from nowcasting during extreme weather); and Recovery (weather forecasts for recovery).

The final report of the Rail Accident Investigation Board (RAIB) on the Carmont derailment was published on 9 March and broadly endorsed the Mair and Slingo reports. With so many worthwhile recommendations from these reports, it might be thought that there is not that much more to learn from it. Yet, a study of its 298-pages showed it had much to recommend about Network Rail’s project management processes, control room management, corporate learning, the operational risk of failed earthworks, derailment mitigation and crashworthiness.

This feature explains why the RAIB report shows the need for improved project and asset management as well as an improved operation response to severe weather. Its summarised recommendations are shown in bold. The crashworthiness of the older trains is addressed in a following feature.

Drain not as designed In 2011, Carmont cutting was the subject of a £1.8 million project to address its stability as it had been overtopped by drainage run-off resulting in soil and small rocks landing in the cess below.

As we reported in issue 77 (March 2011), this was partly due to an increased area of farmland and the reduced effectiveness of field drains. After stabilising the cutting with netting and rock nails, a new crest drain was installed. The work was one of many concurrent projects delivered

under a framework ‘design-and-build’ contract let to Carillion. A Network Rail project manager led a team overseeing the work delivered by this agreement. His team were co-located with Carillion’s project team at Bishopbriggs near Glasgow.

The new crest drain was the last part of this work. However, this required land outside the railway boundary and so had to wait until a legal agreement with the landowner was finalised.

Hence in 2011, it was only possible to install the 20 metres at the bottom of the northern end of the cutting of the drain that was within the railway boundary.

By the time that the legalities had been finalised in August 2012, the original Carillion team had dispersed and so a new team installed the remaining 330 metres of drain.

Although the original Carillion team had submitted technical queries about the drain to designers Arup, no such queries were submitted by the new team.

The drain gently sloped as it ran along the top of the cutting for 285 metres then, from catchpit 16 (CP16), it descended at a 1 in 3 gradient to CP19 along the side of a funnel feature which captures much of the drainage from the fields above. RAIB concluded that, as designed, it was highly likely the drain would have accommodated the high surface water flow prior to the derailment. Yet its report considered that the Carmont accident had shown that drainage design process could be improved and so recommended that: Network Rail’s design process should take full account of the issues highlighted by its Carmont report.

The report showed that various aspects of the drain were not in accordance with the design. Two particularly significant issues were that catchpit 18 (CP18) was in the wrong location and so did not have

2011 work to stabilise cutting at Carmont before installation of the new crest drain.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

41

42

FEATURE

Drainage system catchment area.

(Below left) Bund viewed facing towards drain.

(Below right) LiDAR image of funnel details.

the pre-2010 drain connected to it, and a bund had been constructed seven metres upslope of CP18. This bund captured the funnel feature’s drainage and channelled it into the drain.

The 51.5mm of rain that fell on the accident site between 0550 and 0900 was considered to be a one in a hundred-year event. Drainage modelling commissioned by RAIB concluded that the bund had diverted much of the flow down the funnel feature into the drain above CP18. Hence, at this point, the flow through the drain was 140 litres/ sec compared with the 14 litres/sec that could percolate through the gravel for each metre of drain. This excessive flow and the lack of damage to the drain upstream of the bund showed that it had caused the washout.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

RAIB also concluded that had the bund not been built there would still have been a washout, as CP18 was installed at the wrong location so that the old drain could not be connected to it.

Project monitoring RAIB presented convincing evidence to show that Carillion formed the bund during their 2012 drainage work. However, perhaps due to the company going into liquidation, there are no surviving records of the work undertaken at this time. Hence, there is no evidence explaining why the bund was built or any records of approval for its construction.

There was also no evidence that moving CP18 from its as-designed position had been approved

FEATURE by the designer. Had this been done, Arup might have resolved the mismatch between its design and the circumstances on site.

Network Rail’s asset management procedures required the project manager to complete five forms in agreement with the maintainer: (i) a schedule of the deliverables; (ii) a pre-work dilapidation survey; (iii) a construction completion certificate; (iv) a ‘taking over’ certificate; and (v) a ‘final certificate’ recording rectification of defects found. Other than the pre-work dilapidation survey on 15 December 2009, none of the other completed forms could be found.

The Designated Project Engineer (DPE) is responsible for formal acceptance of construction on behalf of Network Rail. They are required to do this by a sample review and confirmation that quality assurance processes are in place. RAIB was unable to find any such review, or evidence of formal acceptance of design changes.

Network Rail’s construction manager regularly visited Carmont and other projects. Witnesses indicated that his main responsibility was monitoring site safety arrangements and checking the standard of work which would not detect design deviations. Principal contractor audits were also undertaken but these could also not detect unauthorised design changes as they were not carried out at site level.

Project completion The project completion process requires as-built drawings produced from the contractor’s marked up ‘Approved for Construction’ drawings. These could have been used to identify works that are not in accordance with design. RAIB report records how Arup chased Carillion for marked up drawings but got no response.

Network Rail’s standard on the engineering management of projects requires the DPE to verify that as built records accurately record the infrastructure that Network Rail takes into operational use. It also requires the project manager not to close out any project until the relevant Network Rail departments have accepted the required records. Yet there were no records to confirm how checks required by the DPE and Project Manager were undertaken in respect of the completion of the Carmont drainage works.

In addition, the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations require a health and safety file (H&S file) to be prepared with all the information needed for future construction

activities which includes as-built drawings. The Client (Network Rail) is responsible for ensuring that the principal designer prepares this H&S file and that it is kept available for any person who may need it. However, no trace could be found of the H&S file or any Carmont drainage as-built records.

RAIB asked Network Rail for H&S files for other 2012 Carillion projects. Of between 48 and 64 projects, Network Rail stated that it held H&S files for only 16. They also found that only five of the 11 drainage schemes completed in Scotland between 2014 and 2019 had been transferred into Network Rail’s Ellipse maintenance system.

Witnesses indicated that the inefficient asset knowledge transfer from constructors to maintainers was a known problem throughout Network Rail.

In view of the above, RAIB made a recommendation requiring Network Rail to review its contract and project management processes to substantially reduce the risk of contractors modifying the design without approval and ensure the timely provision of the accurate records needed for future management of the asset.

As-designed, CP18 would have been positioned to take outfall from pre2010 drainage system.

Drainage inspections RAIB found no evidence that Network Rail had ever inspected the drain upslope of CP18. This was because the upper part of the drainage system, installed in 2012, was not on the Ellipse infrastructure maintenance database. The lower part of the drain, installed in 2011, was on Ellipse as it had been surveyed as part of a project to identify drains for which there were no records.

This survey was done before the upper drain was installed.

The 2012 crest drain which had not been inspected.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

43

44

FEATURE In view of the above, RAIB recommended that recent infrastructure projects be retrospectively incorporated into asset management processes.

This recommendation was specific to Scottish projects since 2012 but required that Network Rail should consider whether to extend this exercise outside Scotland and to work constructed before 2012.

It also recommended that the earthworks examination manual should be reviewed to consider: a) the reporting of incomplete examinations; b) whether working practices are compatible with its intent; and c) clarity in respect of mixed cuttings.

Before the derailment

Infrastructure failures at 06:55 on 12 August 2020.

Obstructions around train 1T08.

Although the upper part of the drain not being inspected is of concern, it was felt uncertain whether this could have prevented the accident as the bund became covered with dense gorse in the years following its completion in 2012.

The report also considered that Network Rail’s procedures for routine cutting examinations were open to differing interpretations. Carmont cutting is a ‘mixed’ cutting of soil and rock. The earthworks examination manual requires the examiner to go up slope of such cuttings, yet the inability to do this in steep cuttings, and therefore the lack of a crest drain examination, was not always reported to Network Rail.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

During the night of 11/12 August 2020, 30 recorded weather-related infrastructure failures had blocked railway lines in Scotland’s central belt and eastern areas. By 05:00 hrs, the only unaffected Scottish main line was from Inverness to Dundee via Aberdeen.

After train 1T08 left Aberdeen at 06:38, control started to receive information about weather-related issues between Aberdeen and Dundee. At 07:00 a northbound train stopped at Carmont signal box where its driver reported a landslip on the up line a mile to the south. As he did so, 1T08 passed the signal box. The signaller then immediately made an emergency call on the GSM-R system so 1T08 was able to stop 570 metres before the landslip.

Control then decided that the train should return to Stonehaven, however this required mobile operations staff to secure the Carmont crossover points. While this was being arranged, the near continuous heavy rain in the area resulted in four line blockages within 18 kilometres of Carmont. At 09:28 hrs the signaller was able to authorise 1T08 to proceed towards Stonehaven with no instruction to run at reduced speed. The train passed Carmont signal box at 09:34 and, travelling at 73mph, was derailed three minutes later by washed out debris.

Prior to the derailment, 1T08 might have hit the landslip south of Carmont had a northbound train not reported it in time. There was also no instruction to proceed at reduced speed when the Carmont signaller authorised the driver to proceed toward Stonehaven. Hence it is not surprising that nearly half of the RAIB report considers the adequacy of Network Rails operational arrangements to manage the risk of earthworks failure in severe weather.

A&EWP, EWATs and NRWS The ‘ScotRail Alliance’ aims to encourage close collaboration between Network Rail and ScotRail whose respective route control staff are co-located in the integrated route control centre. This is led by the head of integrated control who reports to ScotRail’s operations director.

FEATURE The ScotRail and Network Rail shift control teams are respectively headed by a duty operations manager (DOM) and route control manager (RCM). Reporting to the RCM on each shift are two incident controllers who manage reported defects and problems in east and west Scotland. On the night of 11/12 August the RCM’s team had three additional support staff.

Despite the forecast severe weather, there were no additional staff in the control room which is manned to deal with routine events. Hence its staff were overloaded on the morning of 12 August. RAIB considered that with more staff there might have been mitigation for the potential threat to 1T08 from the extreme weather.

Scotland’s integrated control must follow an ‘Adverse & Extreme Weather Plan’ (A&EWP) as required by Network Rail’s operational standards.

This includes listings of ‘at risk’ locations and actions required if weather thresholds are exceeded. Such locations included earthworks, bridges at risk from scour, and areas subject to flooding. It did not include Carmont cutting which Network Rail had no reason to believe was at risk.

National standards did not require the A&EWP to consider mitigation at locations that were not ‘at risk’ during high rainfall.

RAIB found that in the days and hours leading up to the accident, the actions taken by Scotland’s route control staff were broadly consistent with the A&EWP, but at significant variance with Network Rail national standards. This was because the RCM did not declare a ‘red’ route alert on the day of the accident given the weather forecasts during the days beforehand. This would have led to extreme weather action teleconferences (EWATs) being called to co-ordinate weatherrelated responses from various parts of the rail industry.

RAIB concluded that although an EWAT would probably not have prevented the accident this cannot be discounted as a factor in the Carmont accident.

A weakness of Scotland’s A&EWP was that it did not require control to respond in real-time to weather observations. Instead, RCMs were heavily reliant on the daily forecasts issued at 03:00 hrs

rather than the subsequent short-term forecasts available from the Network Rail Weather System (NRWS) which was introduced in 2015. However, NRWS had not been configured to provide this information and route control staff had not been trained to use it for decision making.

NRWS provides: (i) route-specific five-day forecasts identifying whether weather thresholds might be breached in Scotland’s five forecast areas; (ii) hour-by-hour, location-specific forecasts including 21 within the ‘Perth’ weather area; (iii) real-time weather data from 44 Scottish locations including 18 in the ‘Perth’ weather area; (iv) realtime alerts set by users (e.g. rainfall, exceeding specified values); and (v) a Precipitation Analysis Tool (PAT) which combines forecast rainfall and current soil moisture index to indicate the risk of slope instability.

Geotechnical asset management staff were responsible for identifying NRWS locations which, at the time of the accident, were limited to the A&EWP’s ‘at risk’ list. If appropriately configured, NWRS could have shown when precautions were needed at locations not on the ‘at risk’ list. However, at the time Network Rail had not provided the required rainfall thresholds.

It was also found that controllers in Scotland, and elsewhere, had not been given sufficient guidance or training to enable them to effectively manage complex situations of the type encountered on the morning of 12 August 2020. Although the route control staff had been assessed in accordance with the competence management system this did not detect route alert codes not being allocated or EWATS not called as required by standards and also that Scottish route control staff had not been trained to use NRWS.

Bow tie analysis To develop its earthworks policy, Network Rail undertook a series of ‘bow tie’ analyses, so-called from the shape of its diagram. The left-hand side considers potential causes of a particular threat and required preventative measures while the right-hand side considers the controls needed to manage the consequences should the threat materialise.

Bow tie diagram.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

45

46

FEATURE

The washout debris that caused the derailment.

Although Network Rail has done much to minimise the risk of earthworks failures, it is not reasonably practicable to prevent all such failures.

Moreover, since these are linked to rainfall, it would seem that the underlying risk has been rising over time.

In a 2019 analysis, the bowtie’s right-hand side considered that the most important mitigation for an earthworks failure was ‘operational control.’

Although no detail was provided about how such operational measures might be applied, the effectiveness of this mitigation was deemed to be ‘optimal’ which meant that Network Rail considers this to be an adequate risk control.

However, RAIB found no evidence that Network Rail had assessed the risk of its operational controls failing during extreme rainfall or had systematically evaluated their effectiveness or completeness. Hence, despite increasing awareness of the threat, the bowtie analysis did not trigger action to improve mitigation by, for example, incorporating new operational controls made possible by advanced technology. This shows that Network Rail had not understood how its processes did not adequately address the risk from extreme rainfall events.

RAIB observed that a technology-based strategy with real-time data and improved communications has real potential to manage the risk from extreme

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

rainfall. However, this would require a higher level of control staff competence. It was felt that such a strategy would facilitate improved mitigation such as instructing drivers to run at speeds commensurate with the rainfall-related risk in the locality; improved operation of route proving trains and the development focused contingency plans.

To address the above, RAIB made recommendations that require Network Rail to: » Review its processes for mitigating rainfallrelated threats to earthworks and drainage that could affect the safety of trains » In consultation with train operating companies, review the capability of its control rooms to manage complex, widespread and unusual situations » Undertake a project to improve the management assurance of safety critical functions of route control rooms. » With the assistance of RSSB and RDG define the process for operating route proving trains taking account of hazards and circumstances in which such trains operate. » In consultation with RSSB, undertake a systematic risk assessment of the operational responses to weather-related failures of earthworks, drainage, and structures.

FEATURE Lessons not learnt RAIB has investigated 11 earthwork failures that had deposited debris on the railway as the Carmont washout had. Its reports demonstrated: a) the potential for events at locations not deemed to have a high failure risk; b) the likelihood of rain, particularly heavy rainfall, triggering the event; and c) the importance of effective drainage systems (seven of the 11 events had inadequate drainage).

There were similarities between the accidents at Carmont and Watford in 2016 as control staff had access to NRWS but did not use it. RAIB considered that more effective implementation of three of its recommendations might have mitigated, if not prevented, the Carmont accident. Two of these were from RAIB’s 2014 landslips ‘class’ investigation and the other from its 2016 report on the partial failure of Lamington viaduct in respect of control centre processes for the safety of Scotland’s railway infrastructure.

RAIB has investigated various events involving the role of route control. At Lewisham in 2018, passengers alighted onto the track in an uncontrolled manner. At Baildon in 2016 three trains ran over track where ballast had been washed away while controllers were not able to direct response staff to the correct

location. Near Kentish Town in 2011, a train was stopped for two and a half hours, and the driver was unaware passengers had alighted onto the track when it started to move. Taken together, these reveal the importance of effective decision making and incident management skills in railway control rooms.

In July 2020, Network Rail audited its closure of RAIB recommendations and its own investigations and concluded that its process for tracking recommendations was working effectively. Yet this RAIB investigation established that on occasions the company appeared unaware of the effectiveness of its implementation of recommendations. RAIB concluded that Network Rail needs to ensure that valuable corporate learning is translated into practical measures for improvement.

The lack of effective learning from previous events led RAIB to recommend that Network Rail, in consultation with the Office of Road and Rail, review the effectiveness of its response to safety recommendations and identify obstacles to implementation of lessons learnt from previous events.

There is indeed much to learn from the tragic Carmont accident.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

47

48

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

MITIGATING L A N D S L I P RISK

A

mong the recommendations to mitigate landslip risk made in the RAIB Carmont report on Stonehaven, is the greater use of monitoring technologies. A number of solutions are in the mix, including InSAR, LiDAR and CCTV. However, the technology that has seen the most significant adoption in the last two years is wireless remote condition monitoring, which utilises tilt sensors to detect movement and cellular communications to warn stakeholders of problems.

Responsive monitoring London-based IoT specialist Senceive has developed a package of technology including tilt sensors, cameras, a cellular communication platform and a responsive software umbrella. Tracing its roots back to trial deployments in 2018, its InfraGuard™ package has been deployed at scale across numerous Network Rail routes.

Over 20,000 sensors are now in use on slopes adjacent to more than 40km of track.

InfraGuard is a responsive wireless monitoring solution enabling asset owners to manage critical infrastructure exposed to geotechnical risk.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

It provides near real-time warning of ground movement and is ideal for locations that are: remote, where frequent inspection is challenging; high value, where failure can result in major disruption or risk to life; and at-risk, where assets are vulnerable to damage from sudden geotechnical events such as landslides or washout.

InfraGuard not only tells stakeholders what is happening on site – it also shows them.

“Smart tilt sensors respond to ground movement to give immediate insight of an event,” says Senceive product manager, Dominic Kisz. “The system sends alerts of small-scale movement which could be early signs of a slope failure, and graded alerts of further movement, validated by photographic images.”

Proven technology With a track record of detecting potentially disruptive and dangerous events such as railway cutting and embankment

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE failures, InfraGuard can be the engineer’s eyes and ears on site, without needing feet on the ground. It can be installed in just a few hours by non-specialists and can function for over a decade, needing only a handful of maintenance visits.

Movement is detected by triaxial tilt sensing nodes, usually installed on stakes driven into the ground. These highly precise devices can pick up rotation as small as 0.0001 degrees and transmit data to the internet via a 4G cellular communication gateway. Nodes are batterypowered and gateways and cameras solarpowered - precluding the need for fixed power or telecoms infrastructure.

Low-light cameras work 24/7, sending images periodically (e.g. every hour) – or when triggered by the smart tilt sensing nodes. This instant view enables users to differentiate between false alarms, small-scale movement, and sudden large-scale movement that could represent an emergency. All without visiting the site.

Long-term trends Readings are taken at set intervals to provide long-term static trending which gives valuable insight into asset characteristics through different seasons and climatic changes. Concurrently to the static measurements, the sensors also measure for increases in movement over one second periods to ensure that sudden event failure is also captured and alerted.

When movement is detected, sensor and camera activity is automatically accelerated - with the response related to the severity of the event. A small movement detected by one sensor will trigger an amber alert, which can be checked remotely by viewing a photo; a moderate movement event detected by multiple sensors could trigger a red alert; and a sudden and significant movement detected by multiple sensors could trigger a black alert - prompting immediate action such as a speed reduction or line closure.

With increasing pressure to enhance detection of slope failure, whilst reducing track visits, it seems likely that rail infrastructure owners will look to increase the adoption of remote monitoring technologies such as InfraGuard.

Near real-time landslip warning

Smart alerts graded in relation to event severity Photo validation

Over 20,000 sensors installed on 40km of UK network

Intelligent robust responsive monitoring to protect railways at risk from slope failure info@senceive.com

Senceive.com Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

49

50

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

UK Rail needs

circular materials

P

romising responsible consumption and material efficiency, HS2 is looking to embrace the principles of the circular economy and deliver climate resilient rail infrastructure. Galvanized steel delivers long lasting protection, alongside other crucial benefits for sustainable infrastructure, making the hot dip galvanizing industry an ideal partner to support the decarbonization of the UK rail network.

A recent guide published by the UK and European galvanizing industry - Galvanized Steel and Sustainable Construction: Solutions for a circular economy - underlines the need for whole life carbon assessment to calculate the sustainability of a product, component, or build.

Keeping materials in an endless cycle of use, with minimum energy or carbon expenditure, is the new measure of environmental accountability.

Transitioning to a circular economy means selecting long lasting materials that can be reused, repurposed, and remade accordingly.

Unparalleled longevity If the first line of thinking is to build as little as possible, then building structures and components that require little or no maintenance, and which are designed to last, obviates the need for future

construction. A galvanized coating offers unparalleled longevity. It can be easily and efficiently applied and starts working to protect the steel immediately as it is withdrawn from the galvanizing tank. The atmospheric performance of galvanized steel has been proven across the UK and Ireland, and data is available via a series of corrosion maps that provide accurate performance data.

Standardised galvanized steel components are resilient, reusable, and can be easily reassembled according to changes in usage. Simple components such as scaffolding poles are an excellent example of the hardwearing nature of galvanized steel and the coating’s ability to withstand multiple assembly and disassembly cycles. It

Material production

should be increasingly common for entire structures to be designed to incorporate this kind of adaptability.

In addition to the reuse cycle, it has been shown that galvanized steel lends itself to further remaking, generating considerable CO2 savings in the process.

This was recently highlighted in a case study by the Dutch Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat), which implemented both the direct reuse and the re-galvanizing and reuse of highway safety barriers. Reusing and remaking the components across the entire stock created significant savings: 40% reduction in environmental costs, 70% reduction in CO2 emissions, and a 10% reduction in costs.

Fabrication of Components

Reuse of products

Reuse of components

Reuse of the whole structure

Deconstruction

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Assembly

Use

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

The circular approach

Leading the way

The latest research shows that the additional economic benefits of reuse can be considerable too. An EU study from 2020 on the provision for greater reuse of steel structures - European Recommendations for Reuse of Steel Products in Single-Storey Buildings EU RFCS ‘PROGRESS’ Project 2020 - calculated that a 480m2, singlestorey, steel-framed building, with a combination of reuse and recycling after the first lifecycle, would save 98 tonnes CO2 in the next reuse lifecycle and had a lifecycle cost benefit of €24,000. The report also stated: “Galvanized steel solutions are preferable for structures with possible multiple assembling and dismantling cycles.” While we build our railway infrastructure with permanent solutions in mind, built-in adaptability remains very much a part of the circular approach.

In an ideal circular world, components are kept in a continued cycle of perpetual use, a closed loop with an optimal use of resources, labour, and raw materials. Currently, this remains a goal for the construction sector.

In reality, we are still tackling end of use scenarios for products, materials, and structures, making recycling still very much part of the sustainability landscape. However, recycling is an important process that occurs only once all other circular methods have been exhausted. It offers a final solution to keep raw materials within the circular economy but carries a CO2 burden.

Recycling in the new circular climate means optimising this burden and finding a way to retain value to make something that lasts. Fortunately, steel and zinc can be readily recycled and are not downgraded.

Galvanized steel can be recycled easily with other steel scrap in an electric arc furnace (EAF) steel production process, without any degradation and remains as valuable at the end of the recycling process as at the outset. Any zinc remaining from the coating volatilises early in the steel recycling process and is collected in the electric arc furnace dust, this is then recycled in specialist facilities and often returns to refined

zinc production. An impressive 98% of EAF dusts produced by Europe’s steelmakers are recycled. Overall, recycling galvanized steel produces materials with significant commercial and industrial value, which can potentially find themselves once more within the circular economy.

Steel and hot dip galvanizing offers an optimal combination ideally suited to the needs of UK rail. Innovative steel design, sections or components can be galvanized in a quick, efficient, cost-effective manner and, together, are a known, trusted combination, with a proven supply chain that the rail sector can rely on. Designing and building a climate resilient rail network and HS2 is a huge ambition and gives the UK the opportunity to lead the way in circular, regenerative construction.

As a high value, durable and sustainable material, galvanized steel is an excellent partner to help deliver these projects; it is a well-suited companion for circular projects which are designed to last, aligned with low carbon goals but with key adaptability built in.

Contact Galvanizers Association: +44 (0)121 355 8838 www.galvanizing.org.uk/circular-economy Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

51

52

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

FFU sleepers

SIMPLY WORKING & SUSTAINABLE

ALL PHOTOS: GÜNTHER KOLLER

Ashford bridge project second track 2017.

50% volume of glass fibres at a FFU sleeper cross section.

I

n Issue 193 (Nov/Dec 2021), Rail Engineer looked at Sekisui’s fibre-reinforced foamed urethane (FFU) railway sleepers, which are seeing increased usage across Europe and are due to be installed on the UK’s Chelsea River Bridge. With the same weight as natural wood, and with many of the same properties, FFU is easy to repair and has an extremely long life, and it’s easy to see why this technology is now seeing more widespread use. However, FFU timber also has many environmental benefits which should not be overlooked.

A long life

Sustainable and recyclable

Synthetic sleepers are not a new phenomenon.

Sekisui began developing its product in the 1970s and the first FFU sleepers were put into use on Japanese railway in 1980. Remarkably, since then none of the originally laid sleepers have required removal or replacement.

In 1996, Japan’s Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) carried out tests on sleepers which had been installed in 1980. Several fatigue tests were conducted simulating 100 million load cycles. These tests led to the prediction that FFU would have a life expectancy of 50 years. In 2011, sleepers from 1980, which had now been in service for 30 years, were again removed and tested by RTRI. As a result, RTRI confirmed that these FFU sleepers would work safely for the next 20 years – taking their total useful life to 50 years.

One reason for its longevity is that FFU is not affected by UV light and retains its technical properties after many years of exposure. Where FFU is not painted, long-term UV irradiation only leads to discolouration of the surface. Not only does this increase the material’s durability but also has environmental implications as FFU products do not need to be treated with harmful chemicals to protect them from UV exposure.

Sekisui’s synthetic sleepers are manufactured using the ‘pultrusion process’ in which glass fibres are soaked and mixed with polyurethane, then hardened at a raised temperature, moulded, and cut to length. The only waste from this process comes in the form of waste dust and chippings from drilling, milling, and sanding, and 100% of this waste is recycled. For example, FFU in the form of so-called K-FFU, is made from manufacturing waste, and has been used in Austria and Germany as sole-plates in bridge abutment wall bearings with a constructive height of a few millimetres.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE In addition, all synthetic wooden sleepers are recycled at the end of their lifetime and new products are created from them. At the end of its life on the track, FFU can be reused in a number of ways. For example, it can be cut down to size for other projects; used for level crossing deck material; used as walk board on pedestrian bridges; or returned to Sekisui who will use it to produce further products. The company already produces numerous products from production waste including Anker plates, FFU sheets for other industrial applications, and thin FFU plates using FFU dust.

The use of recycled sleepers reduces greenhouse gas emissions from sleeper production and puts recycled plastic back within the track infrastructure for at least 50 years.

Award winning Sekisui’s environmental credentials have been recognised by industry bodies, globally. In early March, the company received the Bronze Award at the third ESG Finance Awards in Japan, hosted by the country’s Ministry of the

Environment. Sekisui took the award in the Environmentally Sustainable Company category and was recognized for integrating environmental issues into its business strategy, its high awareness of environmental issues in promoting (ESG) management, and its planning and implementation of an environmental medium-term plan.

In February, Sekisui was given a “Silver Class” sustainability ranking by S&P Global, a global ESG investment investigation and ranking company, and in January it was selected as one

of the 2022 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World, by Corporate Knights Inc. The Canadian company recognised Sekisui’s efforts towards a sustainable business based on environment, society, and governance.

Sekisui has also been selected for 10 consecutive years by the World Index of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) and has attained the highest rank in the Development Bank of Japan’s Environmentally Rated Loan Program, in recognition of its environmentally conscious initiatives.

BaneNor Fitije bridge project 2016.

RhB bridge project Davos 2015.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

53

54

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE Industry proven

DB AG - Landshut bridge project 2015.

Ferrovia Nord - Ponte Ticino bridge project 2018.

Safety on the tracks But a product is not sold on its environmental record alone.

FFU timber is a high-quality substitute for timber. Being a closed cell structure, FFU does not absorb water and is also chemically resistant to oils, lubricants, and pollutants.

Essentially, it has the same properties as wood but does not deteriorate over time.

Experience with a wide variety of synthetic sleepers has shown the railway sector that the various technologies on offer differ considerably in terms of quality, technical characteristics, and the behaviour of the materials used. For this reason, by classifying the materials into types, operators of rail networks in many countries

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

have presented these differences in a manner that is practical for the ISO Standard 12856-1 (2014) for synthetic sleepers.

As those responsible for the rail networks are aware, these differences are evident when it comes to procurement and, much more importantly, when it comes to the safety of daily rail operations, in technical longevity, reliability, and therefore also in the availability of the track systems.

Many of the technologies presented to the operators of rail networks thus far have hardly any reference points in railway tracks, and they only have temporary approvals for testing purposes, based on the results of laboratory tests.

Fibre-reinforced foamed urethane (FFU) synthetic wood sleepers have been in continuous operation on rail networks for over 42 years.

Since debuting in Japan, FFU sleepers have been used by the Vienna public transport system, Wiener Linien, on the Wienfluß Bridge project; on light rail networks in Hamburg, Berlin, Düsseldorf, München, Bochum and Toulouse; on the London Underground; and on the Paris and Lille metros.

Among the products available on the market today, Sekisui’s FFU timber possesses the highest number of positive characteristics, determined in laboratory examinations and test results. The patented construction of its glass fibre strands guarantees the highest level of safety and reliability in daily use on railway tracks. In countries across the globe, FFU synthetic wood sets the standard for use as synthetic railway sleepers on bridges, in points, and in tunnels.

FFU synthetic sleeper technology simply performs.

56

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

VolkerFitzpatrick W I D E S C O P E TIGHT FOCUS T

o understand the breadth and depth of services VolkerFitzpatrick provides to the rail industry, Rail Engineer talked to two members of the company’s senior team: Paul Lilley – Operations Director (Depots) and Mike Evans – Operations Director (Rail).

The organisation works closely with its clients to deliver quality projects that are innovative and sustainable. Across its operations, people are key – whether with regard to safety, or providing a lasting legacy for the local communities in which projects are undertaken.

Transforming infrastructure

(Above and below) Barking Riverside Extension.

VolkerFitzpatrick is part of VolkerWessels UK, a multidisciplinary construction and civil engineering group delivering projects across the UK, in five operating companies. VolkerFitzpatrick itself is one of the leading engineering and construction companies in the UK, delivering multidisciplinary civil engineering and infrastructure solutions across three distinct sectors, for highways and airports, rail infrastructure and depot construction, and commercial and industrial building contracts.

PETER STANTON

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Since the early 1990s, the business has been involved with several high-profile infrastructure projects, helping to transform and modernise rail infrastructure and stations in the South East of England, as well as creating some of the UK’s largest, and most prestigious, railway depots.

Paul and Mike attributed the business’ success to its people. Despite its size, VolkerFitzpatrick has worked hard to maintain its original core values and family feel, putting employees first, supporting entrepreneurial spirit, and always ensuring that integrity and ethics are at the forefront of its activities.

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

Both pointed out the importance of the company’s six “Cs”, the key business drivers that support the delivery of its vision, by setting out the parameters in which it operates: Care for our people and projects; Campaign against defects; Certainty of Programme; Cost awareness; Challenge yourself and others; and Communicate effectively with the team.

The company also places great emphasis on training and development, and on the importance of recruiting the next generation, with a focus on employing university students and graduates and offering apprenticeships, as well as providing local opportunities through work placements.

Depots Paul Lilley led on the subject of depots, which is the division’s biggest portfolio of work and accounts for over £1billion of projects over the last 20 years. Recent high-profile depot projects include Doncaster Carr, Stoke Gifford, Swansea, Craigentinny, York, Feltham, and Gosforth.

Paul emphasised that the construction of new facilities within a live depot environment is a logistical challenge for both VolkerFitzpatrick and the train operators. Communication and collaboration are key to the success of these projects, along with being adaptable. Also, understanding that the best construction solutions may not be the best operational solutions, and the best operational solution may not be the best commercial solution, are key lessons learnt for both parties.

As depots are also often situated close to populated areas, the teams are well versed in working closely with neighbours and local stakeholders, hearing and easing local

concerns. They cited the Feltham site, where close attention was paid to keep local residents informed. One solution was the launch of a community app, aimed at engaging and informing stakeholders and providing updates on developments.

Every scheme poses a unique challenge, but the ability to deliver projects on time and on budget, without causing delays to the depot’s daily operations, is a key value that runs through all of its teams, who deliver these multidisciplined projects, along the length and breadth of the country.

Birmingham University Station frame installation.

Stations Mike Evans moved on to talk about the division’s work on stations, where there is a much greater integration with the travelling public, customers, and other stakeholders. The business entered this market around 15 years ago, with a team of 10 people which has now climbed to about 150.

Mike referred to the business’ current highprofile sites at Birmingham, Brent Cross, and Barking, and pointed out that a growing proportion of the portfolio was driven by new

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

57

58

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE housing developments, leading to a growing interface with third party clients. There is an emerging rural stations market, where a robust design and build process has helped to accelerate delivery and, as with depots, close integration and communication with local authorities, neighbours and other stakeholders is vital to ensure effective progress.

VolkerFitzpatrick’s bespoke PALS model – Plan before we start work, have the right Attitude, Lead by example, and Share to help others get it right – has been embedded within the business for a decade. Originally a safety model, PALS has evolved to cover all areas of health, safety, environment, quality, and sustainability (HSEQS), and has been adopted thoroughly by both the supply chain and clients.

Positive culture An important part of the business’ success is a common approach to health, safety, and wellbeing – including mental health – and a positive approach to sustainability. Mike Evans felt the biggest challenge, but also the area he is most proud of, is the safety journey of the business. Both Paul and Mike explained that considerable effort, and the use of behavioural safety programmes, have helped to create a positive culture change towards safety and sustainability.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Future vision Mike and Paul also spoke about their digital journey, and the adoption of new digital tools to improve digital collaboration, visual communication, and stakeholder engagement.

Examples of this include 4D planning, drone footage used in survey works, pix4D to improve service location, Geniebelt to improve record keeping, and a ‘lessons learned’ app as a valuable completion tool and a reference point for other projects.

Wrapping up the conversation, Paul and Mike moved on to talk about the future of the rail industry. They believe VolkerFitzpatrick’s continued investment is improving the network and supporting infrastructure, and that new digital tools are aiding collaboration between stakeholder groups as they work together to achieve their common goals.

The company’s vision is to be a key part of projects that leave a positive legacy for the country’s rail infrastructure, as well as in local communities up and down the UK. Both Mike and Paul are determined to help the business and its wider leadership team drive towards another successful 100 years of delivery – and beyond.

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

GRP - THE

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

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

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

60

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

BOB WRIGHT

Bridge renewal AT GOATHLAND

B

etween January and March 2022, the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) completed the reconstruction of the last two of a package of four bridges at Goathland; one of the largest bridge renewal projects yet undertaken by the heritage rail sector.

The railway’s 180-year-old route runs along 18 miles of scenic moorland, with gradients of up to 1 in 49. As a result, larger classes of steam locomotive, with axle loadings of up to 23 tonnes, are required to haul eight coach trains that carry over 300,000 visitors every year.

Tim Bruce, the railway’s director of Civil Engineering, explained that: “Our bridges are absolutely crucial for an operating railway and ensuring that future generations will be able to enjoy this historic route.

Some of our bridges are over 150 years old and, despite regular maintenance work to care for them and prolong their lives, the metalwork is starting to show its age.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Replacement required In the early 2000s, the railway had appreciated that several of their larger underbridges were in deteriorating condition and would soon need replacement.

For much of the northern half of the route, the track shares the valley with the Eller Beck, crossing it many times. All four of the project’s bridges carry the line over this river.

The first of these was underbridge No. 30 - a hard to access, 25 metre span, 43o skew bridge, which was successfully reconstructed in 2010. With this worst condition span completed, attention turned to underbridges 27, 25, and 24. The cost of replacement or repair of these was, however, beyond the railway’s funds at that time.

The NYMR turned to the National Lottery Heritage Fund, with an ambitious and successful application for a £4.4 million grant as part of a £9.7 million package of projects, termed ‘Yorkshire’s Magnificent Journey’. The balance of funding was provided by the Rural Payments Agency, European Union, and Local Enterprise Partnership, as well as contributions from local organisations and private donors. In addition to the three bridges, the project also included a £4 million carriage stable at Pickering and a volunteer development hub and outreach centre at Stape.

In 2020, underbridge No. 27 at Goathland Station was the first of the three to be replaced.

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

Structural assessments and reviews of its condition had led to the conclusion that the bridge was well past economic repair. Cleveland Bridge were appointed to fabricate and install a new 84-tonne, single span bridge structure. This was designed by bridge specialists Cass Hayward Consulting Engineers based on the British Railways former type "E" bridge updated for the required loading and bearing arrangements. Span is 20m with 40 degree skew. The lack of road access was again a key issue, and so the span was installed using VolkerRail’s 100 tonne and 125 tonne Kirow rail cranes.

Bridges 24 and 25 Under British Rail, this had been a double track railway, but is now single using the former up line. Bridge No. 25 also carries a siding.

These two structures had an interesting history, originally constructed in 1868 as two track half-through bridges, with track carried on waybeams. In 1908 to raise the axle loading of the line, the North Eastern Railway reduced their widths to form single track, half-through bridges with new steel decks and ballasted track.

Surplus main girders from elsewhere on the route were installed to carry the second track, an early demonstration of the benefits of standardised spans and frugal reuse of components. However, the two spans were placed so closely that the external web faces had not been properly inspected, or painted, for over a century.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

61

62

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

These two bridges had initially been considered for strengthening, but their general condition and the difficulty of inspecting hidden parts of the structures, as well as the unknown remaining fatigue life, led to a decision to instead reconstruct them both. Cleveland Bridge was appointed to replace these, with a planned installation in early 2021. However, this company went into administration in July 2021 and closed in September 2021.

Smooth transition VolkerLaser was appointed to take over this contract and, fortunately, a number of the senior team from Cleveland Bridge had moved to this company, smoothing the transfer of information and project knowledge.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Roger Bastin, NYMR’s bridge engineer explained that design loading was to BS153 providing a Route Availability of RA10 (catering for steam locomotive hammer blow effects), meaning that 25 tonne axles could be accepted in future. Speed was taken as 35mph, the original line speed of the branch in BR days. As it is classified as a ‘Light Railway’, the maximum speed on the NYMR is currently limited to 25mph.

Both bridges are of 20 metres span, bridge 25 being 35o skew and bridge 24 being a square span. The new structure was designed to BS 5400 by Cass Hayward based on the British Railways former type "D" bridge", with cast insitu concrete floor. An aesthetic hog-back profile was provided to match the adjacent spans which are not being reconstructed. 2D and 3D analyses were used to check the designs. To allow for inspection and maintenance between the two structures, the girder bottom flange has been offset relative to the web to allow access from beneath.

VolkerLaser’s fabrication sub-contractor was Allerton Steel, at Northallerton. Here the main girders, cross girders,

and trimmers were fabricated and assembled, and shear studs welded to the main girder webs and trimmers.

After dimension checks, the spans were despatched as assembled units to Sheffield for grit blasting, metal spray, and painting to Network Rail N1 specification.

Access issues The previous projects at bridges 30 and 27 had no road access and were carried out entirely by rail craneage using Kirow cranes. Fortunately for bridges 24 and 25 an adjacent field was available enabling road craneage to be used.

NYMR had a long-standing relationship with the farmer and agreement was made to install a trackway access to both bridges, on the east side of line, entered from the road leading to Goathland House.

The existing track across the bridge was removed by the railway’s permanent way team using their diesel rail crane. The old spans were lifted out by a 400-tonne road crane and cut up on site before loading for recycling.

The original 1868 masonry abutments were in very good condition and the design was

BRIDGE SPECIALISTS & CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Solutions We pride ourselves on the quality and innovative solutions we provide for: Railway underline & overline bridges Highway bridges Pedestrian bridges Cycleway bridges Moveable bridges RO/RO link spans

Specialist

We have extensive experience and specialist expertise in: Rail bridges for High Speed lines Dynamic response analysis Temporary works design for bridges Bridge construction engineering Bridge erection methodology

CONTACT US? Website : www.casshayward.com Twitter : @casshaywardLLP LinkedIn : Cass Hayward LLP

Phone: 01291 626 994

64

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

simply to replace the bearings on these, rather than replace them with precast sill units giving a significant time and cost saving.

Following the demolition, the abutments were checked to verify their condition before the new Ekspan spherical bearings were installed.

Delivery of the 4.3-metrewide painted steelwork was expected to be a challenge.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

From the A169 above the valley, the route into Goathland is a narrow road, with hairpin bends and a maximum gradient of 1:3. However the haulier’s skill ensured the successful delivery to the site.

Challenge met The new steelwork was craned into place by a 400-tonne road crane. Following this, the concrete decks and web

face upstands were cast, with reinforcement threaded through the cross girders and trimmers. Flat GRC soffit permanent formwork was placed on the top of the bottom flanges of the cross girders and concrete pumped into place. Timber formwork was constructed for the upstands. Wolfin sheet membrane waterproofing was selected rather than a sprayed acrylic system, as this is less time and weather critical.

The design of the new bridge resulted in a track lift of up to 200mm. This provided a bonus for the permanent way engineer, as the track formation here was known to be poor.

The railway’s team installed new rails and timber sleepers on the bridges, lifted the 180 metres of track between the two bridges, and beyond each to tie into the existing track.

New ballast was placed using their in-house heritage ballast hoppers, tamper, and ballast regulator.

The works were completed in time for the new season’s operations commencing on 4 April, thus completing this quartet of challenging bridge reconstructions.

The specialist contractor of choice VolkerLaser is one of the UK’s leading structural repair and refurbishment contractors, providing a tailored package of services including concrete and steelwork repairs, supported by temporary works and specialist access solutions.

Working nationally, VolkerLaser has an impressive portfolio of projects, being selected as the specialist contractor of choice on high profile structures such as the Bletchley Flyover, working across the West Coast Mainline alongside the EWR Alliance, as well as a catalogue of heritage rail projects for clients such as North Yorkshire Moors Railway and Grand Central Railway.

With previous projects being recognised with many accolades, including a Historic Bridge and Infrastructure award, VolkerLaser has the relevant skills, expertise, and knowledge to manage and deliver projects across the rail sector.

VolkerLaser can also supply V-Deck™ - an innovative under deck access system.

T:

0800 022 3292

W:

www.volkerlaser.co.uk

E:

enquiries@volkerlaser.co.uk

66

PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Delivering benefit from our LEGAC Y A SSETS

Crows Castle bridge in Gloucestershire spans a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the route of a proposed greenway.

N

ature’s reclamation of our dismantled railway network describes a delightfully melancholy intermingling, whereby wildlife and vegetation recolonise trackbeds while structures are lost to the permeative interventions of water and tree growth.

But a more malevolent force has also been at play here - that of our state-owned roads company which, by default, sees only liability in those parts of our heritage for which it was appointed custodian eight years ago.

National Highways looks after around 3,200 disused bridges, tunnels, viaducts, and culverts - comprising the Historical Railways Estate (HRE) - on behalf of their owner, the Department for Transport (DfT). The Protocol Agreement defining its management duties makes clear that it must “seek to reduce the liabilities for the Secretary of State in terms of individual structure safety”. There is no mention of delivering value-for-money or social benefit, and thereby hangs the problem.

The best-practice hierarchy of principles for the conservation of structures carrying roads - as many of National Highways’ legacy rail bridges do - is captured in the company’s standard CG 304. Wherever possible, structures should be maintained in their original form, it says; modifications should involve minimal loss in character, historic fabric, and landscape impact, while any new materials should be chosen sympathetically.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

All of which goes some way to explaining the robust criticism levelled at National Highways over the past year or so for its brutalist infilling and demolition of bridges without any meaningful engineering justification or evaluation of their potential to play future sustainable transport roles. Also overlooked has been their historical and ecological significance which just feels wrong in the supposedly more enlightened uplands of the 21st century. This has all the hallmarks of the destructive 1970s.

Sacrificial lamb At one point, a Brunel-built masonry arch near Saltash was at risk of burial under temporary development powers - known as Class Q applicable only in the event of a serious threat of death or injury. Located between two fields, 375 metres from the nearest right of way, it carries a grassed farm track and occasional Land Rover. Its condition was fine, but that didn’t stop National

failure of the bridge and avert a collapse”, an outcome that was implausible and would have been unprecedented.

But Class Q was invoked and the work pushed forward as an emergency. The rest is history, leaving the taxpayer £124,000 worse off and the railways’ volunteers kicked in the teeth.

Civil engineers expressed outrage and embarrassment at the reputational impact of National Highways’ actions on their profession. Judith Sykes, a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, described the infilling as “shocking” and a “sad reflection” on the state of the industry. Others were much less polite.

Hornswoggling sneaksbies The consequence was that the Government put on hold dozens of other infilling and demolition schemes while consideration was given to whether more of these historic structures could be repurposed for walking, cycling, or rail.

But ecologically damaging preparatory works continued and National Highways went ahead with the award of a £245,000 contract for an infill scheme at Barcombe in East Sussex, prompting the affected bridge - through its own Twitter account! - to brand the company’s team as “hornswogglers”. You can Google that one.

A Brunel-built bridge near Saltash was proposed for infilling under powers only applicable in emergency situations.

National Highways was accused of vandalism after infilling a masonry bridge needed for a link between two Cumbrian heritage railways.

PHOTOS: THE HRE GROUP

Highways telling Cornwall Council that the structure presented “an ongoing and increasing risk to public safety” and infilling was necessary “to prevent an emergency arising”.

Its plight was highlighted by campaigners, since when it has miraculously disappeared from National Highways’ Major Works programme. The company was guilty of a ruse.

But the real turning point came last May/June with an act of cultural vandalism in Cumbria’s Eden Valley. Great Musgrave bridge was needed for the longstanding aspiration of uniting two heritage railways, neither of which were consulted before a contractor arrived with a thousand tonnes of aggregate and concrete within which to bury the structure. Eden District Council (EDC) asked National Highways to stop its work while decisions were made about planning requirements, but National Highways refused.

The bridge was in generally good condition, with a handful of minor defects. Repointing open joints would - according to a structural assessment have restored its 17-tonne capacity to 40 tonnes. Work was undertaken in 2012 at a cost of £10,645, but the assessment was not updated.

In 2021, the responsible engineer told EDC that infilling was needed “to prevent the

PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

67

68

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP

Turning tide

The bridge is a much-valued community asset, within the village’s conservation area and spanning an established wildlife corridor. Residents were up in arms - feeling ignored by the state giant - and uncertain as to whether Schrödinger’s infill would be inflicted or not.

176 of them signed a letter to National Highways setting out their concerns, all of which were sidestepped in the company’s response. But another - which arrived just before Christmas brought some cheer, insisting that “we do not intend to infill this structure”. However, locals remain concerned about the company’s propensity for what they call “sleight of word”; “intend” is far from the unequivocal safeguarding they seek.

PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP

A contract was awarded for an infilling scheme at Barcombe despite the Government putting all such schemes on hold.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

At a board meeting on 21 July 2021, National Highways’ chief executive officer acknowledged that “some aspects of the HRE work was starting to detrimentally impact the company’s reputation”. To put itself on the front foot, a Stakeholder Advisory Forum (SAF) was established comprising representatives from the DfT, Sustrans, Railway Paths, the Railway Heritage Trust, and The HRE Group - the latter being an alliance of engineers, sustainable transport advocates and greenway developers who launched a campaign against National Highways’ infilling and demolition programme last year.

Your author must hereby declare a vested interest as one of its 10 members.

The SAF’s role is to provide advice to National Highways in support of the development of strategy, policy and activity around the HRE’s upkeep, including the identification of opportunities to reuse structures and advising on engagement with relevant parties. A formal review process has been established for determining the optimum approach to Major Works projects, including consideration of each structure’s value against a collection of ‘lenses’. A commitment has also been made to seek planning permission for all proposed infill schemes, rather than driving

them through under Permitted Development powers which circumvent democratic process.

These are positive steps in a much better direction.

Outcomes are, however, the only things that matter. The Government’s pause currently safeguards 68 structures previously earmarked for infilling or demolition. If the review process ultimately saves none of them, months of procedural effort and dialogue will have been futile. Time will soon tell as the SAF is likely to consider its first Major Works proposals from National Highways’ HRE engineering team shortly.

Removing the blinkers So what are the ‘lenses’ through which the potential of these legacy structures will be viewed?

When National Highways’ destructive intentions first emerged into the open in January 2021, 134 bridges and tunnels appeared on the atrisk list, although this number has since been reduced to 68. Among them were five spanning railways advocated for reopening - two in the Lake District, one in Dorset, one in Dumfries & Galloway, and another in West Wales - while three others were needed for extensions to heritage lines in Norfolk, Angus and Cumbria. Of these, two have

been reprieved (at least for the time being), two have been shunted forwards into a future works programme, one is still threatened with demolition, two have been ‘strengthened’ with corrugated steel arches (the structure gauge of which is too small to accommodate trains), while Great Musgrave was very publicly vandalised.

The picture around active travel was equally uncomfortable, with eight planned greenways prejudiced by infill schemes. This situation is untenable given the Government’s professed commitment to an active travel revolution. So, last September the DfT asked Sustrans to carry out an initial assessment of the structures still under threat and seven others where as-yet undetermined Major Works were planned, looking at their potential worth for future walking and cycling routes.

The findings, published in March, were striking, underlining the folly of condemning existing

PHOTOS: THE HRE GROUP

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

infrastructure to ruin from a position of ignorance. Twentysix of the 75 structures were found likely to be useful as part of the ongoing development of our national or local cycle networks, 24 were deemed to have potential at a local level while not appearing in current plans, and the remaining 25 were considered to have no active travel value within the 10-year horizon of the study.

Without the pause, the damage could have been significant and irreparable.

Social responsibilities And then there are the moral obligations that come with life in the 2020s. Does it make environmental or economic sense to bury a structure in around 3,000 tonnes of aggregate and concreteas National Highways has proposed at Little Smeaton in North Yorkshire - when it could instead be sympathetically repaired for a fraction of the cost, possibly allowing the Coal to Coast Greenway to pass beneath it at some

Dozens of at-risk bridges - like these in Berkshire and Shropshire - have potential for repurposing as part of future active travel routes.

Finally a coating system fully tested & approved

by Network Rail for all areas of a structure, including tidal and immersed areas.

Introducing Marathon 550.

To find out more, get in touch.

Email protectiveenquiries@jotun.co.uk Phone +44 (0)1724 400 000

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

69

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE point in the future? And is it appropriate to block established wildlife corridors - as National Highways did when it erected palisade fencing across a dismantled railway at Horspath in Oxfordshire - forcing animals onto a busy road where vehicles were involved in near misses?

A desk study by The HRE Group suggests that 67% of the currently at-risk structures span routes that wildlife could be using for foraging or migration, while 20 of the 59 in England are within or adjacent to sites on the Priority Habitat Inventory for Deciduous Woodland, nine stand in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and one spans a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The importance of ‘green bridges’ and other forms of wildlife passage have been documented repeatedly over the past 25 years. These habitats also offer unique opportunities for increased biodiversity. In this context, the liability reduction policy being blindly pursued

by National Highways has demonstrated a spectacular lack of judgement.

Different direction?

PHOTOS: THE HRE GROUP

70

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

So where do things go from here? National Highways is looking again at its intentions for the 68 structures imperilled by infilling or demolition, reflecting its new review process and lenses; thereafter, revised proposals will be presented to the Stakeholder Advisory Forum for feedback or endorsement.

Campaigners consider it likely that the Sustrans study will reprieve a fair number, but they have little faith that the ecological and heritage value of these Victorian assets will be recognised. There is however the safety net of Ministerial approval now being required for any destructive schemes, alongside the commitment to seek planning consent.

Habitat was cleared around a threatened bridge at Little Smeaton, North Yorkshire, which spans a wildlife corridor.

STRUCTURES & INFRASTRUCTURE

PHOTO: SIMON LOGAN

Kwik - Step Modular Platforms and Stairways

Lightweight FRP Minimal Groundwork Simple Assembly Available from Stock

Platforms & Walkways Residents occupied a bridge at Horspath, Oxfordshire, because its demolition would have severed a wildlife corridor. Having reprieved it, National Highways then blocked the corridor with palisade fencing.

The desecration of Great Musgrave bridge will be subject to belated public scrutiny when an application to retain the infill beyond the 12 months allowed under Class Q - which runs out on 23 May - is considered by Eden District Council’s planning committee. If it’s successful, the structure will forever stand as a monument to the distorted reality contrived by National Highways to justify its actions; if it’s not, the company has threatened to appeal to the Secretary of State, rather than accept the outcome of democratic process and remove the infill material.

The past year has exposed the underhand manner in which National Highways has put our historic infrastructure beyond use without a thought for its strategic or social value. In doing so, it has trampled community aspirations and been less than straight with the truth. Political pressure is forcing a change of approach; there’ll be an audit trail, accountability, and input from those with a vested interest. That’s how it should always have been.

But the survival of these historic structures ought never to have been in doubt; by default, they should have been regarded as assets and managed accordingly. The world is changing and we need to derive maximum value from what we already have.

Minimal Groundwork Simple Assembly Use Immediately Range from 12° to 45° Available from Stock

Galvanized Steel Stairways

PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP

www.kwik-step.com info@kwik-step.com

0117 929 1400

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

71

72

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

Integrated Rail Plan THE EVIDENCE

Ordsall Chord added to the congestion through Manchester’s Castlefield corridor. The IRP has no plans to address this.

A

t a recent rail industry press round table, Network Rail’s Chief Executive Andrew Haines hit out at those complaining about the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP). He felt they had done the industry “an enormous disservice with the Treasury, when the economics of the railway are really challenging,” and that “the rhetoric that has developed around the IRP nationally has been profoundly unhelpful, imbalanced and wrong.”

He had a point as the IRP package represents an enormous sum of money and the realpolitik is such that it is not helpful to criticise those holding the purse strings. Yet are such criticisms wrong? To find out we looked at the written evidence submitted to the Commons Transport Select Committee’s IRP inquiry which comprises 100 submissions. For this feature, we analysed about 20 of these from the cities affected, industry bodies, independent experts, and the Department for Transport (DfT).

IRP The IRP package of rail investment is valued at £96 billion, of which £42 billion had been previously announced. This compares with £185 billion that the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) felt was required to deliver the proposed major rail schemes in the North and Midlands, which included a Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed line from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford and HS2’s Eastern Leg to Leeds (HS2E). Despite recent commitments by the Prime Minister, the IRP considers that these lines are not required and that similar benefits can be obtained by partbuilding them or upgrading existing lines.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

This view is rejected by all the affected city authorities including East Midlands and Manchester where the IRP offers significant benefits. The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) considers that: “government risks not adequately increasing capacity and releasing space on the current network to drive long term economic growth and achieve wider government goals.” The view of the Railway Industry Association (RIA) is that: “it is difficult to see the IRP as anything other than a piecemeal approach to national strategic railway planning. The IRP risks reducing the economic benefits the previous plans for HS2 and NPR in full would have brought.”

Value for money Although £96 billion is a large sum, the benefits from the schemes cancelled by the IRP were equally significant. Studies undertaken for Transport for the North (TfN) show that, at 2060 prices, their preferred network would deliver an additional £14.4 billion in gross value added (GVA) a year, including £5 billion from increased business agglomeration, to create over 129,000 new jobs across the UK, 73,000 of which will be in the North.

The IRP cancels the £18 billion NPR high-speed line between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford which the city considered could generate £3 billion additional annual GVA and create 27,000 additional jobs by 2060.

FEATURE

The IRP proposals.

The submission from Leeds City Council notes that HS2E has a stronger economic case than the western branch, with a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 5.6 reported for the HS2E, compared with 2.6 for the western leg. HS2 and the DfT identified that HS2E generated approximately 70% of the benefits for the whole highspeed network. Abandoning the HS2 line to Leeds therefore significantly reduces the overall benefit from HS2. East Midlands Councils note that previous assessments of HS2 indicated that its full benefits would only be realised when the ‘Y’ Network is delivered in full and that there has been no published assessment of the business case for the IRP’s truncated HS2 network.

The IRP does nothing to address the poor train service between Leeds and Sheffield and so limits their future agglomeration. These city regions support two million jobs and form one of the three biggest regional economies in the UK outside London.

With five million people, their combined economies generate £96 billion GVA with 175,000 businesses and 11 universities.

RIA shows that the rail sector is an economic catalyst with reference to the 2021 Oxford Economics report that they commissioned showing that for every £1 spent in rail, £2.50 of income is generated in the wider economy. The City of

Bradford make the point that rather than just accepting high HS2 costs, the IRP could have been expected to deliver cost savings by challenging over specification, and Government contingency and risk allocation.

The above shows that, while the IRP will clearly cost less than previous proposals, the extent to which it represents better value for money remains unclear.

Northern Powerhouse Rail plan developed by Transport for the North.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

73

74

FEATURE

Transport Committee hearing to consider the IRP. Levelling up The IRP is claimed to support the Government’s levelling up agenda. For example, the submission by the DfT claims that: “under the previous plans, enormous sums would have been invested in improving journeys taken by relatively few people - meaning far smaller sums would have been available to improve local services used by the vast majority.” This false statement ignores the large numbers of people that long, frequent, high-speed trains can carry, the journey opportunities new high-speed lines could have provided, and the capacity they could have released on local lines.

Submissions by William Barter and Gareth Dennis illustrate these points. Barter notes the IRP ignores opportunities to travel Northwards from locations other than London.

In this respect, HS2E and its Toton East Midlands Hub station could have acted as a railhead for large parts of the South and East Midlands whose journey opportunities to Yorkshire and the Northeast are currently slow.

He also explains why running HS2’s high-speed trains directly to Derby and Nottingham stations must significantly reduce the number of through trains to these cities from Leicester. However, one benefit that this provides is released capacity on the Midland Main Line (MML) which could improve local services to London, which is hardly levelling up.

Dennis contrasts the rail services from Shenfield in Essex with those of three Northern towns that could have seen

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

more services from capacity released from new high-speed lines. Shenfield is 20 miles from London, has a population of 10,500, and a service of 10 trains per hour. Outwood (population 7,600), Marsden (3,500), and Belper (20,500) currently have only two trains per hour and are on lines that NPR and HS2E would have by-passed. Instead, the IPR proposes to run more express services through these towns which removes the levelling up opportunity to improve their train service.

Other responses also explain why the IRP does not deliver levelling up. The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) consider that the IRP favours investment in the most productive parts of the North and so is counter to the Government’s levelling up ambition. The RDG also considers that the IRP puts at risk Government delivery of policies to level up the regions and reaching net-zero by 2050.

Capacity and connectivity The North has a Victorian legacy of a predominantly two-track railway with much sharply-curved track and frequent flat junctions that must accommodate competing and differing needs of long-distance, regional, local, and freight services. On such a network, increasing the speed of some services without additional investment in capacity will result in a less reliable infrastructure with lower capacity. As Barter puts it: “increasing the speed of the fastest trains on a mixed-use route is immensely destructive of capacity.”

He is one of many respondents who emphasise the capacity benefits of segregated high-speed lines where all trains travel at the same speed. RIA also points out that route capacity will always be limited by different types of trains having to share the same track, and considers that there are industry concerns about whether the necessary paths can be made available on a mixed traffic railway to deliver the IRP’s claimed capacity benefits.

In its response, the DfT is alone in failing to fully acknowledge this capacity benefit of segregated high-speed lines which the Department considers to be only true “in abstract” as other factors might prevent theoretically available capacity from being used.

As the IRP has much greater interaction with the existing rail network than the original NPR and HS2E proposals, it is likely to require additional capacity enhancements.

Evidence submitted to the Transport Committee’s inquiry identified the following specific constraints: » Retaining Bradford Interchange station significantly restricts future service growth as the station is a terminus with reversal of through trains creating an exponential increase in timetable conflicts as services increase. » Leeds station has consistently been the busiest in the North of England and is very close to capacity. HS2E services would have used a T-shaped extension to the station. If

FEATURE longer long-distance trains cannot be accommodated at Leeds station, it will not be possible to increase local services. » The IRP proposes running high-speed trains to Derby and Nottingham over the constrained and congested existing rail network north of East Midlands Parkway. » The IRP offers no solution for the congested Castlefield Corridor in central Manchester for which additional infrastructure is urgently needed. » The HS2 surface station design for Manchester has no spare capacity when built so will only be able to operate successfully if no perturbation or other unforeseen delays occur.

Although the Government claims the new IRP will deliver faster or similar journeys to the original HS2 and LeedsManchester proposals of the 28 journeys listed in the Plan,

journey times would only be improved for five of these routes, they would remain similar for four, and would be worsened for 19 routes.

Furthermore, claims that an East Coast Main Line upgrade could reduce current London to Leeds journey time from 133 to 113 minutes are considered

by Leeds Council to be “not supported by evidence and appear optimistic.” Barter is one of many who consider that this reduced journey time is not credible, except at the expense of stops at intermediate stations.

Disruption The IRP proposes that instead of HS2E, Leeds will benefit from improved services on an upgraded East Coast Mainline Line (ECML) and states that the disruption from this upgrade would be less than building HS2 due to the number of affected motorways. Neither the IRP, nor the DfT’s evidence refers to the 2017 Network Rail study ‘Options for Potential Capacity and Connectivity Enhancements to the Existing Network’, mentioned in the Leeds response. This study assessed disruption from

01457 869999 PELIPRODUCTS.CO.UK Rail Engineer half page july aug 2021 190 x 130mm.indd 1

06/08/2021 2022 06:46:47 Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr

75

76

FEATURE work to enhance existing lines to provide a step-change in capacity as a potential alternative to the full HS2 network.

It concluded that this would require around 4,400 long weekend possessions, mainly on the ECML and West Coast Main Line (WCML). Say 1,800 such possessions on the ECML would be required to upgrade it to offer the capacity offered

by HS2E, with three such possessions every weekend, this would require over 10 years of continuous weekend ECML closures. This highlights the limitations of upgrading existing lines and indicates that the IRP’s ECML proposals are not deliverable.

Transport for the North (TfN) considers that upgrades often underestimate the cost and time required. They feel that the lessons learnt from the WCML upgrade must not be forgotten as this was the railway equivalent of attempting “open heart surgery whilst trying to keep the trains running.”

It is perverse that the IRP and DfT have ignored the 2017 study which was commissioned specifically to assess disruption from required enhancements should HS2, or a part of it, be cancelled. It indicates that the magnitude of the disruption and thus the cost of the IRP’s proposals is not understood.

will re-join the existing network which is an important freight route. They also felt that HS2E could have created a substantial increase in capacity for rail freight in the UK and that the lack of such high-speed lines puts a ceiling on rail freight growth.

RIA considered that the IRP is unlikely to provide the necessary capacity for freight while ASLEF makes the point that for freight, line capacity is vital as freight trains are typically longer, heavier, and therefore slower than passenger trains. Hence, any plans which increase speed but not capacity will have a negative impact on the amount of freight that can be moved by rail. The

It also demonstrates why, to deliver the same capacity, it is less expensive to build new lines as the cost of contractors working at weekends only with significant set up times, must be significantly more expensive than having continuous site access.

The Leeds submission stresses that it will be crucial to understand the level of disruption caused to passengers and freight which could suffer decades of weekend disruption.

With IRP proposing significant works to existing Transpennine, ECML, and MML routes, passengers reaching Leeds from most directions will be subject to disruption.

Freight

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) was also concerned that the lack of electrification has significant implications for freight operators. An example of how the IRP impacts on the wider rail network is that Anglo-Scottish rail freight will be constrained by the IRP’s cancellation of HS2E as this will increase WCML AngloScottish passenger traffic and so constrain additional rail freight through Carlisle.

The DfT considers that the IRP will increase rail freight capacity with reference to capacity created by the IRP’s new lines west of the Pennines and the Transpennine upgrade. Their response did not consider the Midland or East Coast routes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

The Rail Freight Group (RFG) welcomed some aspects of the IRP such as gauge clearance and electrification of the Transpennine route.

MML electrification was also welcomed though the RFG considered the exclusion of the freight route between Corby and Syston Junction, and the Erewash Valley line, to be a missed opportunity.

The RDG also welcomes the IRP’s electrification proposals but was concerned that the IRP may create new bottlenecks where HS2E or NPR services will operate on the existing network, for example in the East Midlands where HS2 trains

FEATURE and RIA share this concern. RIA notes that just 500 route miles of electrification would enable about 70% of UK rail freight to be electrically hauled. As well as delivering rail decarbonisation, more powerful electric trains have faster acceleration. This increases route capacity by minimising speed differentials, particularly between freight and passenger trains.

Decarbonisation and electrification Accommodating modal shift from less carbon-friendly transport modes is potentially rail’s greatest contribution to UK decarbonisation. In its claim that the IRP offers more rail freight capacity, the DfT recognises that such modal shift is a key part of its decarbonisation strategy, though it does not mention passenger modal shift. The RMT considers that there must be a significant increase in rail investment if the UK is to meet its carbon reduction targets.

In his evidence, Dennis quotes the Climate Change Committee which considers that rail needs to increase its capacity to absorb freight and passenger modal shift from road and air transport. He notes that highspeed rail provides the required step change in capacity particularly through released capacity on existing lines.

Although the IRP will electrify the Transpennine and MML routes, the ICE is concerned that the IRP’s lack of focus on electrification will leave many busy passenger and freight lines unelectrified. Both the RDG

Wasted planning In its response, the DfT states that the effects of the “pandemic cannot be ignored and so we must not rigidly stick to plans drawn up 10 years ago.” This response does not take account of the need to accommodate modal shift, or of the likely increase in rail demand if car travel is taxed by the mile, as it surely must be as the use of battery powered cars increases.

Moreover, the UK’s economic geography has not changed.

Thus, the pandemic is not a reason to scale back previously promised schemes. Responses

Subscribe to our free publications at www.railsubs.com

www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

77

78

FEATURE

Future developments in Leeds have been planned around the proposed HS2 station as shown in the City Region’s HS2 growth strategy.

submitted to the IRP inquiry show how the IRP’s abrupt departure throws regional plans into disarray and wastes years of planning work. Leeds explains how, over 10 years, significant work has been done to plan the city around HS2 in partnership with DfT, HS2, Network Rail and others.

The IRP has ignored this work and it is not clear how much land will be required for its proposals. Instead, a further study on how HS2 trains can come to Leeds is promised which introduces years of further delay and uncertainty.

The SYMCA is also concerned that the IRP undervalues the level of joint working that has been undertaken over 10 years between its constituent councils, the DfT, HS2 Ltd and TfN on technical proposals and growth strategies for NPR and HS2 in South Yorkshire. In the East Midlands, considerable sums have been wasted on studies to agree and develop the location of the HS2 station at Toton.

RIA contrasts the significant amount of rail industry planning for HS2 and NPR with the IRP’s

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

decisions which were taken with little industry engagement. The Association is concerned that the uncertainty from this lack of transparent decision-making harms the supply chain’s ability to deliver at good value to the taxpayer as rail businesses need the confidence to invest in the skills, training, and capability to deliver complex rail projects.

The IRP’s lack of integrated planning indicates that there are likely to be costly unidentified issues associated with its proposals.

The verdict An assessment of the evidence submitted to the Transport Committee’s IRP inquiry shows that, while The IRP offers a large railway funding package to deliver some worthwhile projects, it also has some significant flaws and makes various false claims.

Despite this, Haines is right to point out that the industry should not be seen to be ungrateful for the IRP. Moreover, it is clear the Government does not trust the industry to

deliver at an acceptable price due to, for example, recent electrification schemes and HS2 cost increases. Demanding more money in such circumstances could be counter-productive, especially after Government has spent billions of pounds to support the industry during the Covid crisis.

Yet this should not be seen as money for the railway as the beneficiaries of the IRP are the people of the North of England who have suffered from a historic lack of transport investment. Evidence from its regions show how largescale rail investment could be transformational and that the IRP’s curtailment of the previously promised NPR and HS2E high-speed lines prevents regions from fulfilling their huge economic potential and thus significantly limits the educational and employment opportunities of millions in the North of England.

It is to be hoped that the Transport Committee’s IRP inquiry recognises this reality as a first step to reinstating the IRP’s cutbacks.

Request aafree subscription Request free subscription at www.railsubs.com at www.railsubs.com Call 01530 816 444 Call 01530 816 444 or visit visitwww.railstaff.co.uk www.railstaff.co.uk for more for moreinformation information

RailStaff RailStaff magazine magazine

RailStaff RailStaff has hasbeen beenchampioning championingthe therail railindustry’s industry’s workforce workforce since since1997.

1997.

As As well well as asgetting gettingtotothe the heart heart ofof ‘what ‘what youyou need need to to know’ know’ each eachmonth, month,itsits team team ofof writers writers focus focus on the on the latest latest developments developments in:in: • Health Health • Safety Safety • Wellbeing Wellbeing • Careers Careersand andtraining training We also alsocover coverstories stories that that celebrate celebrate the great the great achievements achievements ofof staff. staff.

Such Such is is the thefreely-distributed freely-distributed magazine’s magazine’s success success that that the the only only industry-wide industry-widepeople peoplerecognition recognition scheme, scheme, the the RailStaff RailStaff Awards, Awards, was was launched launched in in 2007, 2007, and and hashas been been held heldever eversince. since.

Download for free all issues on the Rail Media App for iOS and Android

80

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY

PAUL DARLINGTON

Level crossings W H AT I S B E I N G D O N E T O M A K E T H E M S A F E R ?

T

he Office of Rail and Road (ORR) have recently issued their annual safety statistics, including accidents and safety incidents to passengers, workforce and members of the public. The safety statistic for level crossings did not show any improvement on the previous report and concerning was that there were five fatalities reported at level crossings involving members of the public in 2020-21, an increase of three compared with two in 2019-20. The number of near misses at level crossings with pedestrians also increased to 342, which is the highest since 2002-03.

Great Britain has one of the best level crossing safety records in the world and while the incidents are still low this article looks at the types of level crossings in use in Great Britain and the measures that are being taken to make them safer and all the good work involving risk management, technology and innovation, education and enforcement.

A level crossing is where a railway crosses a road, or right of way, without the use of a tunnel or bridge and includes footpaths and bridleways.

The term ‘highway’ may be used, which is defined in law as any road, footpath or bridleway which the public have access to. Level crossings provide access routes across the railway for the public and private access for landowners.

They range from rural footpath crossings to signalled road crossings with technology such as automatic barriers, CCTV, and obstacle detection systems.

There are around 5,800 level crossings on the mainline railway and approximately 1,500 on heritage and minor lines. To a level crossing user, they may all appear to operate the same, but there are several types of level crossing.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

» Gated crossings or barrier crossings operated by railway staff who check that the crossing is clear, either by direct observation or via CCTV, before closing the gate or barrier and confirming the crossing is clear to allow trains to pass over the crossing. Railway signals are interlocked with the gates or barriers, so that it is not possible to clear the signals unless the road is fully closed by the gates or barriers, nor is it possible to open the road unless the signals are at ‘Stop’ and free of ‘approach locking’. Approach locking detects when a train is approaching the crossing.

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY » Barrier crossings with obstacle detection.

Obstacle detection crossings use radar to detect that the crossing is clear and are designed to operate fully automatically. The crossings are protected by road traffic light signals and with full lifting barriers on each side of the railway, along with an audible warning to pedestrians. Railway signals are interlocked with the lifting barriers, the same as gate or barrier crossings operated by railway staff. » Automatic half barrier crossings (AHBC). These also operate automatically, but do not check if the crossing is clear when a train approaches.

Trains should not normally arrive at the crossing in less than 27 seconds after the amber lights of the road traffic signals first show. The road layout, profile and traffic conditions must be such that road vehicles are not likely to become grounded or block back obstructing the railway.

A good road profile is particularly important at this type of crossing. AHBC are now fitted with additional red warning lights for pedestrians approaching the crossing on the side of the crossing with no barrier. » Automatic barrier crossings, locally monitored (ABCL). These appear to a user to operate the same as an AHBC, but the ‘locally monitored’ means a train driver checks the crossing is operating correctly by observing a flashing white light on the approach to the crossing. The road traffic should not exceed 56 mph and the

sighting of the crossing and line speed must allow the train driver to stop if the white light is not flashing. » Automatic open crossings, locally monitored (AOCL). These operated the same as ABCL crossings, only without a half barrier and only flashing Wig Wag lights to stop road users. The speed of the trains over the crossings will be determined by the traffic moment but should not exceed 56 mph. Most AOCL crossings have now been retrofitted with half barriers and called AOCL+B. Only about 25 AOCL crossings remain in lower risk locations such as depots. While now looking the same as a ABCL crossings, the name AOCL+B is used as the barriers have been added retrospectively, whereas ABCL crossings have been provided with barriers from new and the circuity is different.

THE ADAPTIVE OUTER PANEL SYSTEM.

simple, reliable - tolerates CANT and 6FT Rail Height Differential  the

extra strong system for maximum loads. ¬ tolerates horizontal track position changes ¬ stable support & quick and easy installation and removal ¬ lightweight panels and aluminium bearers - no machine required to install ¬ consists of two materials > rubber and aluminium > combines the advantages of both ¬ fibre-reinforced to withstand ever increasing traffic loads

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

@strail_official

@kraiburg strail

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

81

82

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY » Open road crossings are only to be found at locations where the speed of trains over the crossing should not exceed 10 mph, there is no more than one railway line over the crossing and the daily traffic movement is low.

There are also approximately 2,000 User Worked Crossings (UWC) on the mainline railway. These require users to operate the crossing themselves, sometimes with the aid of a direct line telephone to the signaller, or with the aid of a Miniature Stop Light (MSL). MSL’s consist of red and green lights operated by approaching trains. An audible warning and a red light will activate when a train is approaching and users should only cross when the green light is showing and no warning is sounding. UWCs may also have gates or barriers which the user must open and close.

Level crossing telephones (UWC-T) were once considered as the ‘answer to all our problems’ with UWCs, but the method of protection by telephone is not perfect. Firstly, the user may not bother to use the telephone before using the crossing. The signaller may not have accurate information of where trains are in relation to the crossing. The signaller may tell the user not to cross, but if the train is some time away the user may get impatient and decide to cross when it is not safe. Users may not have English as their first language and signallers can become overloaded with other tasks. As signalling areas get larger the signaller workload involved with UWC-T increases along with the risk.

If there is a barrier or gate associated with UWC-T the user may not close it after using the crossing; which is an issue with all barrier / gated UWCs. The user also has to cross the level crossing a number of times to open and close the barrier / gate, which all increases risk. If the UWC is used to access a residential property

the property may get deliveries from multiple delivery drivers who may not be familiar with the area. The days of such crossings being just used by the local mail person are long gone and the dramatic increase in on-line shopping has also increased level crossing risk.

On 21 January 2021, a passenger train narrowly avoided a collision with two cars at Coltishall Lane UWC-T, near Hoveton, Norfolk.

The near miss occurred because the car drivers did not telephone the signaller before using the crossing. The investigation found that this may have been because the car drivers were unfamiliar with the crossing, and because the level crossing gates had already been opened.

One mitigation to reduce risk at UWC is to provide a MSL and so far over a hundred have been installed. They are more expensive than a UWC-T so they can only be provided on a risk basis but hopefully costs may reduce as more are procured.

Over the last two years during the Covid-19 pandemic, the sale of road vehicle vans has increased by 7 per cent, which possibly illustrates the increase in shopping deliveries.

Covid-19 also generated more people taking outdoor activity and holidays in the UK. All this has increased the risk associated with level crossings, which all must be assessed and managed.

Level crossing risk assessment Assessing change is key to level crossing management and renewals. And infrastructure managers have a legal duty to assess, manage and control the risk for all users. Level crossings can be categorised by their type as discussed earlier, but no two crossings are the same and each one is unique. Factors that must be taken into account: include frequency of trains, frequency and types of users and the environment and where the crossings are located. The frequency and types of users can quickly change. For example, a popular Sunday market may suddenly appear. Sat Nav algorithms may change and create additional road traffic.

Local authorities may cancel school buses and increase the number of young crossing users and the Covid-19 lockdowns generated more people taking rural exercise.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY Level crossings are normally assessed at a frequency that is based on the level of risk a crossing poses and typically ranges from 1¼ to 3¼ years. Education and level crossing safety campaigns are also a key part of improving safety and managing and mitigating the risk at crossings, and a lot of good work is done by the local level crossing safety managers in this area.

Other initiatives to reduce the risk from level crossings include: » Eliminate risk by closing crossings where agreement can be reached. Since 2009 Network Rail has closed over 1,250 level crossings. » Improving the sighting at level crossings where possible. Vegetation can very quickly increase risk. » LED road traffic lights. 500 crossings have been fitted over the last ten years, significantly improving the brightness of road lights at level crossings. » Better technology to inform users of a second train approaching crossings in quick succession after the first. » Repositioned UWC-T. Over 250 have been moved into safer areas for users and telephone labelling has been improved at many locations. » Roll out of automatic obstacle detection crossings with full barriers. » Installation of barriers at 66 AOCL crossings. » Working with British Transport Police to discourage deliberate misuse and to record offences at level crossings. » Red light safety cameras to detect users not stopping when crossing lights operate. So far 84 have been installed across the network. » Audible warning devices at high-risk footpath crossings. » MSL for installation at user worked crossings.

So far, a programme of 100 has been delivered.

Improved UWC signage The Coltisal Lane incident investigation also identified that the signs at the crossing were ineffective in prompting users on how to cross safely. Rail Engineer covered the proposal to provide improved pictorial signage at UWCs in the August/September 2019 issue. It was identified that users did not always associate the existing UWC worked crossing sign with the crossing, and that the existing signage is too ‘wordy’ and does not use a pictorial representation of the crossing. The provision of the new pictorial signage has been held up due to Covid-19, the consultation process, and the legal changes required. However, the new signage has now been installed at a number of MSL crossings via site specific DoT approval and hopefully the improved signage will soon be rolled out at more UWCs.

Level crossing closures The safest level crossing is one that has been closed. But it is not easy to close a level crossing as they connect communities and society. Closure of a level crossing may be possible and is usually the best and cheapest option to reduce safety risk where it can be

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

83

84

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY done, but often it is not feasible and public level crossings in particular are near impossible to close. Private crossings are more easily closed, since normally only a limited number of people hold the crossing rights. Often there is only one rights holder, who is the owner of land that was severed when the rail line was constructed. This makes it relatively easy to negotiate with the rights holder and agree some way to eliminate the crossing. Typically, this could be a crossing connecting farm land which is no longer used.

Building a bridge in order to close a level crossing is expensive, whether it goes over or under the railway line. However, a signalled level crossing will need to be renewed several times in the life of a bridge, and a busy road and rail line with a level crossing can cause major road congestion in an area.

Even if a business case and funding for a bridge could be obtained, the installation of a bridge can be very disruptive for the railway, for neighbours, and for users of the right of way.

Land and property may have to be acquired to allow a bridge construction, and this too may be a challenge in built up areas, as we are a crowded island. In the case of footways and bridleways the costs and disruption of a bridge to meet the needs of crossing users - who may include cyclists, horse riders, wheelchair users, mobility scooters, and parents with baby buggies, (among others), can easily be out of all proportion to the usage of the crossing.

It also needs to be empathised that all level crossings also need to be designed to accommodate cyclists, horse riders, wheelchair users, mobility scooters, and parents with baby buggies, (among others).

Risk based approach The ORR “Principles for managing level crossing safety” were reissued June 2021.

The guidance is a change from the level crossing guidance published in 2011 – “Level Crossings: Guidance for Managers, Designers and Operators”, and known as RSP7. While RSP7 did not set mandatory standards, it did describe particular layouts and methods of operation, and was perceived as setting requirements for level crossing design.

A risk-based approach is taken with the new “Principles for Managing Level Crossing Safety”, and it sets out the principles and factors which should be considered in a level crossing risk assessment. It emphasises that risk should be reduced through the design of a level crossing, or through an alternative way of crossing the railway where this is reasonably practicable, and the importance of considering how level crossings are actually used by all users. The guidance is focussed on continued improvement in level crossing risk management on a risk basis.

Summary While the level crossing statistics may appear alarming, level crossing safety in Great Britain is very good - but there is always more that can be done. The road and rail networks in some parts of the country are extremely congested, which further increases the difficulty of managing level crossing safety. Level crossings represent one of the principal public safety risks on the railway and even though level crossing risk has been significantly reduced over the years, it still accounts for 6 per cent of the total railway system risk.

Closing level crossings must remain an objective, but is not easy. Further improvements, including new technology and education to manage the safety of public and passengers will always be required.

The challenge will remain to make sure the continued management of level crossing risk is so that the risk is as low as reasonably practicable, while keeping communities safe and connected.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

LEVEL CROSSINGS & TRACKSIDE SAFETY

­

­

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

85

86

FEATURE

MALCOLM DOBELL

Electrification

of freight terminals M uch has been written about the challenge of decarbonising the railway.

Commentators debate the merits of 25kV electrification, or hydrogen and/or batteries (on self-powered trains). In the end, the discussion is about the relative energy density (whether measured by volume or mass) of the various energy sources compared with diesel fuel. 25kV electrification, of course, supplies energy to the train on demand. When discussing hydrogen and/or batteries, the main issue is the space, range and weight penalties of hydrogen-battery or straight battery solutions. These debates tend to be focussed on the passenger railway.

But for freight there is only one solution, electrification. None of the alternatives work for freight. Both battery and hydrogen solutions result in reduced train length available to the payload to accommodate the power sources needed to move trains equivalent to those currently hauled by the ubiquitous class 66 diesel locomotive.

The challenge Although diesel rail freight is already much more carbon efficient than road transport, the challenge of decarbonisation means that more needs to be done. Further electrification of the main line is required to enable a significant increase in electric freight. The distances involved are not large and the key sections include Felixstowe to Ipswich, Haughton Junction to Birmingham via Leicester, Bletchley to Oxford (an opportunity being missed on the East West Railway), London Gateway and the Somerset quarry lines.

The Railway Industry Association (RIA) has estimated that electrification of just 10% of the lines recommended by Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Study would enable 70% of rail freight to be electrified (circa 1200

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

single track kilometres). However, another issue must be solved if there is to be more electric rail freight. That is access of electric locomotives to freight depots and sidings.

A solution?

In July 2021, electrification equipment supplier Furrer+Frey announced it had been funded by Innovate UK and the Department for Transport “to develop an overhead conductor system specifically designed for freight terminals which currently rely on diesel shunters”. Although many rail freight terminals are located next to electrified lines, currently the overhead cables must stop short of the terminals, so the trains can be loaded and unloaded safely.

The prototype has been installed at Tarmac’s/ GB RailFreight’s terminal in Wellingborough by SPL Powerlines UK and Rail Engineer visited in March 2022 to examine the prototype in action.

It involves a moveable overhead conductor bar that will allow freight trains to move into position then be retracted to enable unloading and loading.

FEATURE

PHOTO: FURRER+FREY

Loading wagon with the conductor retracted.

Noel Dolphin, head of Furrer+Frey UK, described the development of the freight solution from the base product used in passenger train depots to enable access to roof mounted equipment such as air conditioning and (of course) pantographs. In depots, sections of overhead conductor wire fitted to a rigid aluminium extrusion are installed on motorised swing arms that can be moved to one side of the high-level access staging under remote control. Interlocks are provided to ensure no access to the staging and so that cranes cannot be used unless the OLE is moved to the side, isolated and earthed. Trains are run into the depot road under electric power, pantographs are lowered, the conductor is de-energised, swung away and earthed, allowing work to start.

After work, when everything is stowed and everyone is clear, the conductor is swung back into place, power is switched on, pantographs raised, and the train can be driven out of the depot.

Accommodating freight Similar principles apply to the freight solution, but development was required to accommodate the open environment of a freight yard compared with an enclosed depot. Particular issues include a much larger temperature range, all weathers, and a relatively dirty environment.

Rob Daffern, Furrer+Frey’s engineering director, said that lessons had already been learned from the test installation as they had experienced the retracted conductor losing contact with the earthing strip in gale force winds. This is something that’s easy to fix, now they know.

In a freight yard, the train would be driven into the yard until the locomotive has passed the movable section. Then the movable section would be de-energised, swung out of the way and earthed, allowing work to start, the train moving forward as necessary to provide access to other wagons on the trains. Although static, the demonstration showed how the retracted conductor provides

access for a hydraulic grab to load or unload aggregate or ballast from a wagon and will also be suitable for loading/ unloading containers. The length of the retractable section can be varied according to the needs of the depot.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

87

88

FEATURE Rail Engineer wanted to understand the costs compared with, say a battery powered shunter. Noel explained that in many yards, there would be a cost in terms of the shunter, staff to operate the shunter, and possibly extra track to accommodate locomotive change. By comparison, the moveable conductor would allow work to be carried out using the main line loco and driver in an analogous way to how trains currently operate with diesel traction. He added that freight yard electrification would be cheaper than main line electrification on cost per km basis, and that moveable sections, which only need to be as long as the loading area, would add approximately 30% to the cost.

Essential step Noel paid tribute to Innovate UK for its support and to the teams from GB Railfreight, Tarmac, SPL Powerlines, and his team at Furrer+Frey. This project has been delivered in record time from the original elevator pitch in December 2020, a Dragons’ Den pitch in February 2021, formal application in March 2021, funding approved in July 2021, and the demonstration in March 2022.

This is a small but essential step in electrifying rail freight. The site at Wellingborough was ideal as it is adjacent to the newly electrified Midland Main Line and is an excellent example of how the benefits of rail electrification can be extended to freight at relatively small additional cost.

(Right) Extrusion and conductor wire.

The pen is for scale.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

FEATURE

System supplier for rail electrification

www.powerlines-group.com

Passion for Delivery

High Power Charge Stations Proud Winner for ‘TECHNICAL INNOVATION OF THE YEAR’ at Global Light Rail Awards 2020

k

Furrer+Frey are delivering the charging infrastructure for Coventry Very Light Rail Project.

Vehicle design by Transport Design International

gb@furrerfrey.co.uk

@furrerfreyGB

www.furrerfrey.ch

All about people

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

20p a day

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

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

89

90

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

The age of the train C

A

R

M

O

N

T

(Part two)

T

he train that crashed at Carmont was a ScotRail High Speed Train (HST) of four Mark 3 coaches with a class 43 power car at each end. These HSTs were originally introduced in 1976 and had a maximum speed of 125mph. Ninety-five HST sets were built, and the fleet has travelled more than 850 million miles and been involved in four serious accidents, including Carmont. Most were recently withdrawn with the introduction of new trains on the East Coast, Midland, and Great Western main lines. The number remaining now constitute less than 2% of the UK train fleet.

ScotRail Mark 3 HST coach fitted with sliding doors.

The ScotRail HST fleet is restricted to 100mph and comprises of 26 4-coach trains.

Before entering service, they were extensively refurbished by Wabtec. This included corrosion repairs and fitting powered sliding doors.

Following the publication of RAIB’s interim and final Carmont reports, some politicians, trade unions and railway commentators called for ScotRail’s HSTs to be scrapped, arguing that the ‘museum pieces’ are unsafe as they did not meet modern standards. This concern arose, in part, due to the particularly violent nature of the Carmont crash as compared to the derailments considered by Rail Engineer’s crashworthiness feature in issue 191 (JulyAugust 2021).

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

This was largely due to the nature of the terrain beyond the derailment which occurred when the power car’s wheels ran over washout debris. After this, a slight right-hand curve caused the lead bogie to yaw left. When the train reached a bridge, 60 metres beyond the derailment, the power car had deviated over two metres from the track’s centre line. It then stuck and demolished the lefthand bridge parapet.

This resulted in large compressive forces between the power car and lead coach which, together with the vertical height difference and large pitch and yaw angles between these vehicles, caused the lead coach to override the right-hand side of the power car and the coupling to fail. The power car then veered off the bridge, hitting the embankment at a speed of around 45mph, and stopping instantly. Beyond the bridge, the railway runs along a heavily wooded slope with a cutting to the left and an embankment to the right.

This constrained the following three coaches as they jacknifed. One then finished down the embankment and one finished across the tracks with the other two on top of it.

FEATURE The investigation considered whether there would have been a better outcome had the vehicles been constructed to modern crashworthiness standards. This was not the case for the drivers cab for which the report concluded that: “the speed of impact was significantly beyond the collision speeds for which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants.” Nevertheless, the report recommended that RSSB should review research on fitting secondary impact protection devices for drivers.

The report noted that, as at the 1997 Southall, 1999 Ladbroke Grove, and 2004 Ufton Nervet collisions, the HSTs have generally performed well.

At Carmont, there was only a limited loss of survival space and the coaches resisted passenger spaces penetration during impacts with other vehicles and bogies. Vehicle interiors also performed well. Despite severe movements and roll over, none of the seats and tables became detached except for those in the burn-out section of one coach that had suffered a battery fire, sometime after the initial collision.

In this respect it was recommended that RSSB should investigate alternative battery designs with improved fire-related properties.

Derailment mitigation.

At the time of the derailment, there were no guard rails on the approach to the bridge.

These could have avoided the power car deviating about two metres to the left and hitting the bridge parapet which resulted in a particularly destructive chain of events.

To be effective, such guard rails would have needed to be at least 35 metres from the bridge.

A Network Rail standard requires that consideration should be given to the provision of guard and gathering rails when track is renewed at locations where the

consequence of a derailment is high. If fitted, guard rails shall extend 18 metres from the location at risk i.e., less than the 35 metres to be effective at Carmont. The track at Carmont was last renewed between 1966 and 1970 before this standard applied.

At locations where there are no guard rails or containment kerbs, excessive deviation from the track could also be prevented by bogie mounted equipment not necessarily designed for the purpose. At Watford in 2016, an axlemounted gearbox kept a derailed train close to the track.

(Below) Gearbox and Traction Motor guiding derailed train at Watford.

(Left) Gathering and guard rails now installed at the Carmont bridge.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

91

92

FEATURE

Damage to coach that overrode the power car.

Recommendations to address the above were that Network Rail, RDG, and RSB should develop a long-term derailment mitigation strategy which considers infrastructure and rolling stock features that could guide derailed trains and that it should also review the provision of guard rails and other derailment containment.

Modern crashworthiness standards

Distorted and broken through glazing unit.

Not surprisingly, the 40+ years old train, had some corrosion, some of which had been repaired when the coaches were refurbished for use by ScotRail.

In the coach that had overridden the power car, there had been loss of survival space where end pillars sheared off their bases.

Although these pillars had been corroded, RAIB analysis showed that, even with no corrosion, the large forces involved could have been sufficiently high to shear the pillars.

HSTs are fitted with ‘Alliance’ buckeye-type couplers which did not withstand the forces and relative vehicle movements of the derailment. All these couplers failed except the one between the last coach and trailing power car. Modern standards require more robust couplers which the RAIB report considers would have led to less vehicle scatter although it acknowledges that there are limits in the ability of couplers to keep coaches together.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Furthermore, research reports have shown that couplers designed to absorb energy in low-speed derailments could result in a derailment at higher speeds due to excessive yawing and pitching.

Modern stock also has anticlimb features intended to prevent the over-riding that occurred between the leading power car and following coach.

However, at Carmont the significant height difference and large pitch and yaw angles between the two vehicles might have rendered any anti climb features ineffective.

Unlike vehicles designed after 1994, Mark 3 coaches do not have any bogie retention.

Hence, all coaches except the last one lost their bogies. The report explains the benefits of bogie retention particularly as a train with bogies could, if not jacknifing, dissipate their energy in a benign way as derailed bogies run through the ballast.

The report references RSSB study

T118 ‘Whole Dynamic Behaviour in Collisions’ which also concludes that bogies should be retained, as far as is practicable.

However, the study also noted that the required modifications were likely to incur significant costs and concluded that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to support retrospective fitting of bogie retention.

To address any additional risk of operating vehicles pre-dating modern standards the report recommended that owners of HSTs should assess additional risk from lack of modern crashworthiness features and identify reasonably practical measures to control any identified additional risks. They should also consult with owners of pre-1994 rolling stock to issue industry guidance on assessing such risks. Though this is initially directed at HST owners, there are many other pre-1994 still in service.

Bogie mounted lifeguards are intended to prevent derailments by deflecting relatively small obstacles. The report suggested that a stronger lifeguard might have moved sufficient washout debris to prevent the derailment but acknowledged that there is no evidence to support this theory. Nevertheless, it recommended that HST owners should consider strengthening bogie-mounted lifeguards.

Of concern was that 22 of the 61 bodyside windows were completely broken through with some panes shattered into large pieces rather than small dicesized pieces as intended. Yet the

FEATURE

windows were designed with laminated glass to comply with modern standards designed for passenger containment.

They had failed due to the glazing unit being distorted due to the vehicle’s deformation.

Such failures are not covered by current standards. The report also noted that the glazing unit design was constrained as it had to fit within the existing frames. Hence it recommended that RSSB should investigate performance on windows during the crash to determine if changes are required to standards.

Though no one was injured by them, the single seat folding tables had a particularly sharp corner so a recommendation was made that Angel trains and ScotRail should review the design of the HST’s bodyside mounted folding tables.

Are old trains unsafe?

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of RAIB’s Carmont report is that some believe it shows the 40+ year old HST trains are unsafe. To understand this, fellow writer Malcolm Dobell and I had a discussion with RAIB’s chief inspector designate, Andy Hall and crashworthiness specialist, Winston Rasaiah.

The RAIB report concluded that: “more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards.”

We discussed this as, given the enormous unpredictable forces and the unfavourable terrain, in some circumstances there was potential for modern

features to make the outcome worse. For example, had the coupler not broken the entire train might have followed the power car off the bridge.

While it is not possible to state what might have happened in such hypothetical scenarios, on balance RAIB felt that its conclusion was reasonable given the benefits of, for example, bogie retention.

The report noted that although the more modern train involved in the 2007 Grayrigg derailment had more kinetic energy than the Carmont derailment, there were fewer casualties. We felt this comparison was misleading as the terrain at Grayrigg was more benign and that kinetic energy, in itself, does no harm.

Winston accepted the point about kinetic energy and agreed that it is the rate at which energy is dissipated that has a direct effect on potential injuries.

However, he felt it was important for the report to make the kinetic energy comparison.

We also discussed whether corrosion on such old trains might have made matters worse. Winston considered

that any corrosion would have affected the strength of the coach though he advised that RAIB did not consider that the corrosion found made the train grossly inferior and it was not possible to say that it made the coach non-compliant with standards. Furthermore, he considered that the forces on the pillar were of the order of many tonnes. In this respect the report recommended that owners of Mark 3 coaches and other rail vehicles susceptible to corrosion should review maintenance plans to ensure that vehicles comply with their original structural design load.

Of necessity, RAIB reports are highly detailed, so it is possible to quote selectively from them.

Andy noted that: “we have to write the report as we see fit and how people interpret it is up to them. RAIB has not said that the Mark 3 coach is unsafe, far from it.”

It was clear from our discussion that RAIB is certainly not calling for the HSTs to be withdrawn from service. Instead, its view is that the risks of operating trains pre-dating modern standards need to be reviewed and the reasonable practicability of additional risk control measures assessed.

This considered view is one that needs to be understood, as do the many lessons from RAIB’s thorough Carmont report. Grasping these lessons and implementing the report’s recommendations are the best way to improve safety after the tragic Carmont accident.

HST Lifeguard.

The terrain at Grayrigg.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

93

94

FEATURE

London Underground’s

Northern Line Extension

CLIVE KESSELL

I

n issue 192 (September/October) Rail Engineer reported the opening of the London Underground’s Northern Line Extension (NLE). This significant project did not have the same high profile as others such as Crossrail or HS2 but, nevertheless, there were many engineering challenges including the integration of new and older technology. An IRSE lecture explaining the project took place in late February, and an article loosely based on that is given here.

Background to the Northern Line The line has an interesting history and it is one of the more complex ones on the Underground network. Two separate rail companies ran north to south through London. The City branch was formed out of the very first deep level tube ever built. The City and South London Railway, running from King William Street to Stockwell opened in 1890, with the West End branch being formed from the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway, opening in 1907.

Various extensions enabled the two lines to be joined in the north at Camden Town and in the south at Kennington.

From these two places, northwards lines were built to Edgware, High Barnet, and Mill Hill East (the latter two by taking over ex Great Northern lines at East Finchley) and a southwards extension to Morden mostly in deep tube.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Further extensions were planned before the Second World War by electrifying the ex-GN line from Finsbury Park to East Finchley and linking up with the Northern City Line to Moorgate (now integrated into the Network Rail main line network), extending from Mill Hill East to Edgware and a new line from there to Bushey Heath. Although work started, it was stopped during the war and never restarted because of changed planning regulations.

Thus, the Northern Line had three terminus points in the north of London but only one in the south. It was decided to run trains on the West End branch only as far as Kennington (except in peak hours), so a half circle balloon loop was constructed to enable trains from the southbound platform to get to the northbound platform without reversing. This was to prove fortuitous when planning the NLE.

FEATURE The vision The area around the erstwhile Battersea Power Station has main line stations nearby taking travellers into either Victoria or Waterloo termini.

With the power station closing in 1983, the area has seen considerable residential development and 20,000 new homes have been constructed in recent times, mostly as elegantly designed blocks of flats. To access the city meant a disjointed rail journey so the case was made to extend the Northern Line from Kennington to a terminus known as Battersea Power Station; rather strange since this has not generated electricity for many years although the building is architecturally Grade II listed. Approval was eventually given in 2014 and construction began in 2015. The line is 3km long and opened in September 2021.

Constructing the railway A main contractor was appointed for the work, this being Ferrovial Laing O’Rourke becoming known as FLO. It was directly responsible for the tunnels and track, the two stations at Nine Elms and Battersea, plus new shafts at Kennington.

Since the new line needed to be integrated into the existing Northern Line, Thales was appointed as the contractor for railway systems including the signalling.

How to connect the new line into the existing at Kennington was the first requirement and here the existence of the half circle turn back loop made for an easy decision. The loop was, by necessity, at a different depth to the ongoing tube lines to Morden so joining into this had no impact on the Morden service. Two step plate junctions were constructed, one to enable trains from Charing Cross to run directly to Battersea, the other to enable trains from Battersea to run to Charing Cross - the line effectively becoming an extension of the West End branch. To create the junctions, a large diameter tunnel is constructed around the original tunnels. When complete, the original tunnel segments are removed to create a new tunnel into which the junction points can be positioned.

From these junctions, two new tunnels were bored westwards towards Battersea. Unlike existing tube tunnels, the new ones have a greater diameter to enable a walkway to be provided at train door level. Two boring machines (known as Helen and Amy after Helen Sharman and Amy Johnson, the space and air travel pioneers) were provided, beginning excavation in early 2017 and completing the main tunnel construction by the end of that year. A conveyor belt was constructed from the Battersea site to the river Thames, from where barges took away the spoil to a site at East Tilbury.

The tunnel linings are concrete formed of interlocking segments. Track is laid on a concrete slab with a scissors crossover near to Battersea station. At the two station sites, the cut and cover station box method was used to construct the much larger tunnels for the platform areas together with the escalator shafts to link to the main station concourses at the surface. Two new ventilation shafts are provided at Kennington Park and Kennington Green, both having architectural designed structures at ground level with the intention of them blending into the surrounding area. These shafts also provide emergency access if required.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

95

96

FEATURE

The stations and shafts have been designed by Grimshaw Architects and are on a grand scale.

Nine Elms is adjacent to Wandsworth Road and close to the American embassy. Battersea Power Station is near to Battersea Park station and in the middle of the recent housing developments. Both stations have or will have artworks features. One can foresee them becoming listed buildings in due course.

System requirements As with any new railway, the list of systems needed to operate and control the line in its widest sense, is quite long. For the actual trains to run, the line needed signalling, track-to-train radio, high voltage power, an emergency traction discharge system, cooling and ventilation, cable routes for the various systems, track-to-train CCTV, and radio for staff communication and to the police, all of which have to be integrated into the existing Northern Line control operation. The integration process involved connection to the power control, the extension of the line’s WAN, the Northern Line control centre at Highgate where an additional control desk has been provided, the Northern Line communications network plus the central London Underground control and the link to the British Transport Police.

To achieve all of this, a 3D model was built using Building Information Management (BIM) techniques, from which the power and earthing, cooling, and ventilation, EMC compatibility, rolling stock adaptation, and space provision could be determined. Whilst all this was under the control of FLO, the contractor worked with TfL (Transport for London) specialists, to form an NLE Railway Systems team to manage the TfL overall scope.

Challenges Various challenges emerged: (i) radio cell enhancers and the cable management system needed 2D drawings to be cut from the 3D model and sent to the individual suppliers; (ii) Network integration for the individual station and shaft sites and how they are connected by the fibre cabling; (iii) communications integration to ensure provision protocols to the control centres, the BTP and links to end users.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Additionally, although no new rolling stock was required, the existing trains had to be modified for new destinations and routes including new in coach audio visual messaging, the train radio linkage, the Vital On Board Computer (VOBC) and the train management system. Also, the track to train CCTV safety system as required for the One Person Operation (OPO) platform to train interface with high quality images using on board split screens to ensure a complete viewing of the platform from the cab. The positioning of cameras was critical and had to take account of station lighting interference. The siting of the platform wall radiating cable needed careful design and positioning.

Signalling The Northern Line had already been equipped with the Thales Seltrac Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) system with final cutover taking place in June 2014. A report of the project featured in issue 127 (May 2015). This was the second generation of the Seltrac system but, as so often happens with modern technology, a third generation of Seltrac is now available. This is being employed on the 4LM project for the Circle, District, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith & City lines but was deemed not readily ideal for the NLE as it is entirely radio based, whereas the Northern Line uses track loops. As such, a compromise solution was developed for the NLE which continues to use track loops but with a WiFi type radio link to the train instead of the former transmission based 56KHz system.

The third-generation equipment has been deployed for the station controller sub system at Battersea and on all of the wayside equipment, including links to the platform and concourse information displays. The main software has been imported from the existing Northern Line system. Updated software was needed for the system management centre to introduce new functionality at the Kennington area junctions. The second and third generation had to be interfaced including the trains needing a modification to read both types of track-based links. Cyber security was upgraded in the Thales contract and is more detailed and onerous than on the secondgeneration system.

FEATURE sub systems tested in isolation; (iii) dynamic testing of the system including use of test trains and boundary tests; (iv) trial operations including training of train staff; and (iv) system commissioned and start of service.

System planning & verification

The portfolio of new signalling equipment required six new points ends using the Siemens Mobility Surelock machines with the motor mounted between the rails, new AzLM axle counters, and the inductive loop fixed on to the Sonneville low vibration track form. The red wire used for the inductive system needed critical positioning to ensure effective coupling and no cross interference to other tracks. A new thirdgeneration Vehicle Control Centre (VCC) has been added to the eight existing second-Generation VCCs. Important interfaces associated with the signalling included links to the tunnel and public area ventilation systems.

As would be expected, a close control was kept on progress and validity of the work being carried out. An Activities Plan included the development of inspection and quality plans. An early strategic document was the Asset Commissioning Handover Management Plan which contained 24 documents describing the entire project to ensure effective integration. A 25th document brought all the 24 documents together.

The implementation and transfer of operational controls included a Signalling Review Panel with an independent chairperson and a Systems Review Group to track the overall programme and non-signalling elements. The main stages were to create an ‘Engineer’s Railway’, followed by trial operations of trains and stations with a period of shadow running, and then finally into revenue service. The entire project took six years from start of work to commissioning into public service.

Functionality changes Two important functionality changes have been introduced. At low usage times – very early in the morning and late at night – the NLE operates as a shuttle service to Kennington. This means that trains arriving from Battersea into the northbound platform, must reverse in the ‘wrong’ direction around the half circle loop in order to get to the southbound platform. Trains can also be stabled overnight on the NLE rather than returning them to a depot.

The signalling has to remember where such trains are before the power is turned off for engineering hours. Trains must be positioned accurately and must store their locations. Axle counters are monitored to ensure no movement takes place. In the morning when power is restored, the train must see the first crossover as anticipated, whence it can enter normal running mode. If it fails to see the expected crossover, the storage data is failed, and an emergency brake application is made.

Since there are no local control panels, point maintenance is facilitated by a wall mounted key switch that enables technicians to swing the points if needed. This can only be carried out under strict safety procedures and the Seltrac system stores and reports all point status conditions.

Migration of the signalling system took place in five phases: (i) system design including the important work at Kenningtom; (ii) individual

Cost and future intentions The total project cost has been £1.1 billion which was £160 million under budget. This was funded by private capital mainly from the developers of the Battersea Power Station site plus other developers in the Nine Elms and Vauxhall areas.

A possible extension to Clapham Junction is envisaged but is unlikely to progress until plans for Crossrail 2 re-emerge from the doldrums.

Thanks are expressed to the lecture presenters: Lawrence Weller as the team leader, David Smith for the civil engineering aspects, Neil Johnson for details of the new systems, and Tom Stankowski who explained the signalling system.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

97

98

FEATURE

MALCOLM DOBELL

I

n February 2022, some 70 delegates and speakers met at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) headquarters in Westminster to hear about managing fractures on the railway. Over the last three years there have been three issues with rolling stock cracks and fractures with at least one instance of significant service impact. This was the first opportunity to meet and discuss lessons learned. It was also the first face-to-face seminar at IMechE’s HQ since the Covid restrictions started in March 2020. By coincidence, the meeting took place on the day that the majority of restrictions ended.

Other things that can go wrong include poor materials selection or substandard material supply, misunderstood or incomplete application of standards, misunderstood load measurements, analysis errors, inadequate maintenance, and build technique creating residual stresses. The latter is hard to detect.

The event covered principles, standards, case studies, and experience from aviation and track, as well as techniques for managing cracks. There was so much material that this article concentrates on an introduction to the issue of designing and managing rolling stock structures, and case studies highlighting what can go wrong. In the presentations there is a common theme of designs not matching their working environments because those environments were not fully understood; something that is very difficult to achieve.

Two of the case studies are included here and the third, concerning Great Western Railway’s class 80X Inter City Express Trains, will be in the next issue.

Known unknowns

Occupational hazard David Crawley, managing director at Xanta Limited, explained the key factors in managing cracks and fractures based on his over 40 years’ experience in aerospace and rail. He made it clear that cracks in mechanical structures are to be expected. They arise from many factors including poor design, poor selection of materials, inappropriate specification, and operating conditions that vary from those assumed. General design criteria

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

include appropriate strength and stiffness to provide the required operational duty, fatigue resistance to avoid initiation of failures, and toughness to avoid catastrophic failure. The designer needs to know the loading of the structure. The principal sources of rolling stock loads include tare and laden conditions, buff and draw loads, track induced loading, and crashworthiness.

David explained that these loads can sometimes be difficult to quantify, an issue that crops up in the case studies later in the article. He illustrated this with reference to London’s historic Hammersmith Bridge which opened in 1887 and which has been closed to motor traffic since April 2019. David wryly observed that Sir Joseph Bazelgette, the bridge’s designer, might reasonably not have designed for either today’s motorised traffic nor global warming in his original requirement set, and that he might have expected maintenance and modifications to be undertaken to cope with changing conditions. Designers tend to make conservative assumptions, but they are often not conservative enough and there can be obscure sources of loading such as harmonics and resonances.

David said that we should expect cracks because often there are unknown and/ unknowable factors that challenge design assumptions. The numbers of rolling stock designs (together with aircraft and bridges) are so small that each is essentially a bespoke design requiring new learning, and acquired learning is often lost in a roughly 20-year cycle. Another factor is that the longer the asset life, the more likely there will be changes affecting loading that invalidate original design assumptions.

So, cracks are common, but engineers and asset managers need to know which ones matter because failure to react could be unsafe, and managing them can lead to loss of service. It is important therefore only to deal with cracks that matter. The potentially dangerous ones on trains are those in the primary load paths; those where there is no alternative load path and where failure might lead to collisions, gauge infringements, and/or derailment.

Structures include car bodies, bogies, and items mounted on them including doors.

David also highlighted some of the myths encountered when dealing with cracks such as ‘permanent’ weld repairs in parent metal (only suitable as a temporary repair) and drilling a hole at the root of the crack to

FEATURE stop the crack (rarely, if ever, successful). He stressed that a crack generally demonstrates that a design and its operating environment are not, or never were, compatible. One or both must change. In practice this means that the design must change to accommodate the environment e.g., different materials, more load paths, or different fastenings.

Occasionally, allowing failure and repeated like-for-like replacement can be an economic solution. This involves either establishing the root cause of the problem or carrying out a redesign to render the issue impossible.

Finally, David said that he is often asked: “whose fault is it?” He made four points: (i) suppliers can’t be accountable for clients’ operating environments; (ii) clients may not know or have the competence to specify the operating environment; (iii) use of standards won’t capture reality; and (iv) condition tends to degrade with time. He said that collaborative testing, analysis, and commitment to maintain condition standards is a practical solution; true systems thinking! He also recommended reading the HSE document ‘Reducing Risks, Protecting People’, commonly known as R2P2. Echoes of David’s talk including residual stress, environment different to that assumed, and issues with design/manufacture all feature in the case studies which follow.

Case study 1 Jubilee Line 1996 Tube Stock Inner Longitude/Drawgear Cracks.

Discussed by Steve Whysall former Principal Engineer, Transport for London (TfL); Loucas Papaloucas then Principles Engineer TfL; and Will Marshall, Jubilee Line Fleet engineering manager.

At 13:00 on 17 October 2019, a large crack was found on the inner longitude, the main structure that supports the drawgear, on a special trailer car (SpT) - see panel - during an underframe examination. This was immediately escalated to London Underground’s (LU) fleet engineering team. By 14:00, three more SpTs had been inspected and two more cracks had been found. This was a potential fleet-wide safety concern. By 14:30 the issue had been reported to the professional head of rolling stock engineering and, by 15:00, the issue had been escalated to senior management recommending that there be a controlled withdrawal of the fleet after the evening peak to allow a visual inspection and only trains meeting set criteria should return to service the next day.

By 17:00, inspection criteria had been generated for use by the train technicians who would carry out the inspection and, by 18:00, a Case for Continued Safe Operation had been produced; a document that argues why the approach is safe and what actions will be taken to control and reduce risk.

Steve Whysall and Loucas Papaloucas explained that the aim of the instruction was to remove all potentially unsafe vehicles quickly from service whilst minimising the overcrowding risk at stations, itself, a safety risk. For example, that evening most of the 15,000 audience at the O2 Arena adjacent to North Greenwich station would have been stranded with little alternative public transport options if the fleet had been withdrawn. It was also desired not to swamp the depot with trains which would have made moving trains around for inspection slower, but they wanted to provide confidence that trains offered for service the following day would be safe.

The next day 10 of the 63 trains were stopped from service due to cracks.

JUBILEE LINE The Jubilee line 1996 Tube Stock was introduced in 1997 as a fleet of 59 trains composed of two three-car units. It was designed to allow fitment of an additional trailer car. In 2007 a 7th car, known as a special trailer car (SpT) was added to all trains and four additional seven-car trains were built. In 2011 the fleet was upgraded to Automatic Train Operation. The line operates between Stratford and Stanmore, with a service of up to 30 trains per hour and, pre-covid, carried over 200 million passenger journeys per year. Each train travels 175,000 km per year, and there are 441 cars in the fleet.

Data collection The inspection process set out the types of cracks and lengths allowed. Inspectors were asked to identify the fractures by type, size, and severity, with data collected in a way that would allow the fleet team to monitor crack growth.

Will Marshall took up the theme of data collection. There were some 252 damaged positions which required frequent non-destructive inspections with the rest of the 1512 locations being inspected on a three-monthly basis. To minimise the number of stopped trains, a complex matrix of crack types, assessment criteria, action levels, and reinspection intervals taxed depot management. Managing 63 trains for a once-round inspection is one thing but managing the varying criteria made it much more complex.

As a minimum, some 7,500 inspections per year were required. Will reported that he had to develop the record keeping system over three iterations before he was confident that he was fully able to track the various inspections and defects.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

99

100

FEATURE

Case study 2 Detached Yaw Damper Bracket, classes 195, 331. Discussed by Graham Taylor, Project Director CAF UK.

The immediate objective was to design repairs to keep trains in service whilst the root cause was sought. The most severe fractures were not permitted back into service until a temporary welded repair could be executed. Slightly less severe ones were allowed back in following fitment of a 5mm steel spreader plate between the drawgear bracket and the longitude, while some of the smaller, less critical cracks remained in service without intervention. A programme of work was set up to implement a temporary welded repair on all positions with cracks present, recognising that the low fatigue life would remain and cracks might return in a few years.

Increased susceptibility While all cars were affected, it became clear that the majority of cracks were at both ends of the SpT and the adjacent uncoupling non driving motor (UNDM).

Location of cracks following first round of inspections.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

As part of the investigation into why the cracks/fractures were happening at all, the engineers investigated why the SpT and adjoining ends were more prone to failure than other locations.

The key factors included: no load cases/ fatigue assessment for inter-car forces as a result of buff and draw, and poor interface design and management (stiff bracket, mounting surfaces not flat, fixing hole positioning) resulting in a deficient fatigue life (even for the former 6-car formation).

For the 7th car project, the assumption had been made that the design was already proven. In fact, the introduction of the 7th car significantly reduced the fatigue life and the introduction of the higher performance associated with ATO further reduced fatigue life although to a smaller degree.

Another issue was the small number of occasions per trip where very high longitudinal forces were seen as the trains passed gaps in the current rails (it is LU practice not to have power bus lines along the train so each of the four power cars loses traction as it passes a gap delivering a compressive or tensile pulse to the couplings). Based on the measurements and assessments, the SpT to UNDM had a calculated fatigue life (years to crack initiation in 2.5% of the population) of 2.25 years, SpT to trailer, 8.7 years, compared with the similar, but six-car, 1995 tube stock of 11 years.

The repair work is ongoing.

On Saturday 3 April 2021 a yaw damper bracket was found detached from the carbody of a power car of unit 195 121, a class 195/1 Northern DMU. At one end of the bracket the double C-section equipment mounting rail (C-rail) had fractured while at the other end the C-rail was intact, but the mounting bolts had

fractured. The immediate reaction was to initiate an inspection of all the other class 195 trains and inform all other operators who might be affected. Graham said that this design is the same or similar on all the trains that CAF has recently supplied to the UK (Caledonian Sleeper mk 5, TPE mk5a coaches, Northern Class 331 EMU, TPE

FEATURE

class 397 EMU, West Midlands class 196 and Transport for Wales class 197 DMU) and those trains were inspected too.

These inspections, which continue to the present time, show that only one bracket had become detached but a number of cracks in the outer section of the C-track were reported.

As a temporary solution, a spreader plate was proposed. This increased the size of the load path from the yaw damper bracket into the C-rail and was secured to the C track with 12 bolts and much larger backing plates. This effectively made the mounting to the C-rail much stronger and bypassed the damaged section on those that had already cracked.

The existing yaw damper bracket was, in turn, bolted to the spreader plate. This made the yaw damper bracket 20mm lower than before, which was only a problem in the rare circumstance of a crush load with the air springs deflated. It was proposed to the customer on 15 May 2021, and the three affected trains were back in service by 31 May 2021, with further spreader plates available for use where required. Attention then turned to designing a bracket that restored the correct height.

PHOTO: WIKI COMMONS

Class 331 EMU.

class 195 units (both two and three-car) and on class 331/0 – three-car units. Class 331/1 units run on different routes from the class 195 and class 331/0 units. This has led to the investigation exploring, so far without success, whether there is a critical point on one of the routes or depots seen only by Class 195 and Class 331/0 units that can produce this failure, such as a very tight curve that cause the damper to be fully opened or closed thus generating forces beyond the design proof loads.

A new design concept has been produced to cope with this condition, if indeed it is the root cause, which has not been proven.

It is, effectively, a new yaw damper bracket integral with the spreader plate and is some three times longer than the original yaw damper bracket with the vehicle lifting pocket integral with the yaw damper bracket. The design has been conceived to redistribute the load introduced by the damper between four different ‘legs’, and 16 bolts connecting it to the C-rail. Load per bolt is reduced by 3.5

Proposed final design of combined yaw damper bracket and spreader plate.

Root Cause Analysis It was clear that the loads being experienced by the C-rail were outside its ability to withstand them. A detailed assessment of the design and its environment has taken place. To inform the re-design, a detailed finite element sub-model of the yaw damper and anti-roll bar area was created, and lab tests were carried out to validate the model. An instrumented train was operated to assess the actual loads recorded in operation and these were found to be consistent with the design assumptions. Material specifications were checked, and manufacturing and assembly tolerances were also considered as were damper specifications.

Finally, the various types of bogie - i.e. power (diesel), power (electric), and trailer - were considered.

Graham reported that only one crack has been identified on class 331/1 – four-car units and that cracks are concentrated in

Temporary spreader plate showing how it bridges the cracked C-rail.

times compared to the original design. This reduces the stress to 1/5th of its former value giving an increase in forecast fatigue life in the C-rail from a nominal 55,000 miles to 170,000,000 miles. The new design is, however, somewhat heavier and Graham said that manipulators are also being designed to make installation of the new bracket easier.

This final solution is applicable to CAF UK Civity type EMUs and DMUs and the detailed design/change request was presented on 19 November 2021. At the time of writing, a design review was under way.

Conclusion It is evident that these three incidents caused considerable disruption to either customers, routine maintenance operations or both. The requirements of railway legislation and standards encourage extensive assessment of the risks and likely consequences of structural failure during design, and there are well practiced arrangements for inspection and testing for cracks during maintenance. But could more be done? Should there be a periodic review of the environmental conditions that deliver most of the loads that train structures should withstand?

Such a review might have identified the Jubilee line cracks and at least the yaw damper/anti roll bar aspect of the class 8XX. But could a routine review have warned of the stress corrosion cracking issue or the problem with the CAF yaw damper bracket believed to be caused by over extension or compression of the damper? If we cannot catch all issues, perhaps reducing the frequency of surprises is a prize worth seeking. Rail Engineer will surely return to this topic.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

101

102

FEATURE

HAROLD, THOMoS, and PANTHER in Huddersfield ALL PHOTOS: DAVID SHIRRES/MALCOLM DOBELL

MALCOLM DOBELL

I

n 2019, a network of universities and industry partners concerned with railway research was formed. The UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) was built on three Centres of Excellence formed by a consortium of universities, in collaboration with existing industry testing and trialling facilities such as Network Rail’s Rail Innovation and Development Centres.

The Four Centres of Excellence cover: digital systems (led by University of Birmingham; rolling stock (led

by University of Huddersfield); infrastructure (led by University

THOMoS interior.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

of Southampton); and testing (led by Network Rail). Some £92 million of total funding was committed to these centres by the UK Government and leading industrial partners.

The University of Huddersfield has developed its Institute of Railway Research (IRR) facility since its launch in 2013 following the move of Professor Simon Iwnicki and his team from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2012. The team has increased from 12 people to some 35 and the IRR has developed an international reputation for the quality of its research. Its first hardware test facility was a rolling road for testing bogies and wheel/rail adhesion named the Huddersfield Adhesion & Rolling contact Laboratory Dynamics rig (HAROLD), which we covered in Issue 145 (November 2016).

Following further consultation, industry expressed a desire to see more research into passenger comfort and into pantographcatenary interaction. The Train Hi-fidelity Motion Simulator (THOMoS) and the Pantograph Huddersfield Experimental Rig (PANTHER) were born and, at a recent ceremony, the Minister of State for Transport, Andrew

FEATURE

Stephenson, formally opened the facilities. The event also included a visit to a rig being developed for robotic bogie maintenance and guests received a preview of HAROLD 2.0.

THOMoS The Train Hi-fidelity Motion Simulator (THOMoS) is, in effect, a windowless 2.6 metre metal cube mounted on six large servo-electric actuators.

On entering the box, one finds a single bay of eight seats arranged like a rail vehicle seat bay with LCD screens representing the windows. The actuators control the motion rather like a flight simulator or static fairground ride, albeit with less extreme movement.

The actuators are controlled by signals calculated from the suspension reaction of the vehicle type under test on any track. Real track geometry data obtained from Network Rail’s New Measurement Train is used with a model of the target vehicle as the inputs to Vampire vehicle dynamics simulation software. The output of Vampire is used as an input to the motion simulator control system.

The aim of the rig is to understand how customers react to the ride performance of a train or changes in track design alignment. When Rail Engineer had the opportunity to ‘travel’ in the simulator, it felt extremely realistic with ‘vehicle’ movement, sound, and the passage of external scenery. Track and suspension

characteristics can be rapidly altered allowing researchers to observe volunteers’ reaction to varying ride quality.

For example, are occasional large movements due to discrete faults more disturbing than, say, a general slightly rough ride?

Huddersfield’s Professor Paul Allen also explained that they are undertaking work to review the currently accepted limits for jerk rates at cant transitions and for varying degrees of cant deficiency.

The aim is, hopefully, to allow the limits to be relaxed and speeds to be increased. A line that would benefit from such a relaxation is the West Coast Main Line where non-tilting trains are limited to 110 mph compared with the tilting train limit of 125 mph. In 2023, non-tilting Hitachi AT300 trains will replace tilting Voyagers and studies are already under way to minimise the impact of non-tilting trains. Other applications include evaluating the effectiveness of changes to suspension or seat design, with the potential for designers to ‘ride’ on a train or route yet to be built.

PANTHER PANTHER provides the opportunity to test pantograph performance and new pantograph technology without having to use expensive test trains/scarce test paths and without risk to the operational railway. The system can demonstrate the pantograph’s dynamic forces at simulated

speeds up to 400 km/h enabling the analysis of existing or new designs. PANTHER’s electronic system controls the movement of the actuators which are capable of applying vertical excitations of up to 100 Hz and accelerations of up to 4 G onto the pantograph contact strips reproducing, in real time, the interaction with the catenary whilst in service.

Another actuator simulates catenary stagger with lateral movement of +/- 300 mm, maximum frequency of 1.5 Hz, and acceleration of up to 2.7 g. The pantograph under test is mounted on a platform with six degrees of freedom to replicate any train movements or vibration.

There is a compressed air supply for the pantograph and there is an adjustable DC power supply and real time computer available for any active control systems. The demonstration clearly showed the difficult environment of the pantograph/catenary interface.

As an example of the tests that can be carried out on the rig more easily than on the railway, if PANTHER had been available during the time that the issues with electrifying under Steventon Bridge and over the adjacent level crossing on the Great Western route were identified (Rail Engineer March 2020), it would have been a lot easier to evaluate the impact on the system of

THOMoS exterior – actuators in action.

PANTHER pantograph/ catenary interface rig.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

103

104

FEATURE HAROLD 2.0

PANTHER pantograph/ catenary interface rig.

Professor Simon Iwnicki (L) Director of the IRR, and Bob Cryan (C), University of Huddersfield Vice-Chancellor, welcome Andrew Stephenson (R) Minister of State, Department of Transport.

more severe catenary gradients than are normally allowed. In particular, much less access to the railway for testing would have been required and there would have been much less risk.

The contact with the pantograph appeared to be made of some sort of plastic.

When Rail Engineer queried why copper contact wire was not used, Dr Pedro Antunes, PANTHER’s ‘keeper’ advised: “The ‘contact patches’ set at the end of the actuators, are made of Teflon and have the shape of the contact wire machined in. Teflon is used to avoid wearing the pantograph contact strip when we want it not to. For example, we might want to perform tests that are repeatable, or consider a specific new or worn out contact strip shape.

“We can fabricate or machine other contact patches out of other materials, but the test rig also comes with a second accessory to use instead of the contact patches where a real contact wire can be installed. This accessory is attached to both ends of the high-performance hydraulic actuators and you can install any contact wire on it to make contact with the pantograph.

The accessory also has a joint system that allows for the hydraulic actuator to be at

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

different extensions and allow the contact wire to have some degree of pitch.

“Depending on a specific test, the type of contact patch or accessory are to be chosen to fit best the test’s objectives and considerations. For the demonstration presented, we decided to use the Teflon contact patches so the pantograph’s contact strips are not worn unnecessarily.”

A planned task for PANTHER is to evaluate a new pantograph design. This is a collaboration between University of Huddersfield and University of Bristol, supported by Brecknell Willis and funded by Network Rail. Conventionally, pantographs respond to changes in catenary height using spring/mass/damper systems and there are issues maintaining the required vertical force at all times. This project intends to explore the benefits of using inerters (see Panel) instead of or in combination with conventional damping. Watch this space…

An upgrade is underway on IRR’s full-size railway bogie test rig costing £1 m and will include the integration of a realtime train braking performance model as well as the capability to prove novel hybrid drive and energy storage systems.

HAROLD is the UK’s only fullsize rig of its kind, featuring a motored rolling road that can drive a wheelset of a standard gauge bogie at speeds up to 200 km/h, exerting real-world forces via its hydraulic actuation system. Engineering consultant Ricardo is delivering the upgrade for IRR. The upgrade will provide significant enhancements to the facility’s functionality, including a fully functional AC power bogie, comprising both friction and regenerative brake systems and complete traction package.

Professor Paul Allen, Assistant Director of the IRR described the enhancements.

“In helping realise predictable and optimised traction and braking performance, HAROLD 2.0 enables testing and development of hybrid vehicle concepts and will support the railway industry in overcoming its wider decarbonisation and electrification challenges,” he said.

HAROLD 2.0 is part of a hardware-in-the-loop test method utilising on-train systems allowing nextgeneration wheel-slide protection (WSP), dynamic brake blending control, and traction components to be fully analysed. The test environment will have the ability to recreate traction and braking duty-cycles at speeds of up to 200 kph, under a range of

FEATURE

wheel-rail adhesion conditions over a whole route to prove the systems prior to on-track trials.

The Director of the Institute of Railway Research, Professor Simon Iwnicki summarised the enhancements to braking

and traction management system development, problem solving and proving; hybrid drivetrain and energy storage solution development and proving; real-time energy storage models; and whole-

short section of standard gauge track over a maintenance pit - a representation of a typical train depot. The robots were able to move approximately 6 metres, although in a real depot, of course, this would be much longer to allow robots to maintain and inspect a whole unit of vehicles. A 1980s BR suburban style trailer bogie had been provided for initial investigations.

Rail Engineer was particularly impressed with both THOMoS and PANTHER and looks forward to hearing about the results of the research in the future.

Rolling stock maintenance by robot laboratory.

HAROLD rolling road rig.

With thanks to Professor Simon Iwnicki and his team for their assistance with this article.

What is an inerter?

Two components are typically used in a vehicle suspension: » Springs, where the force in the spring is proportional to the displacement between the two ends » Dampers, where the force in the damper is proportional to the velocity across the two ends as: hardware and software development; proving of next generation WSP systems; train brake blending controller optimisation (friction and electro-dynamic brakes); routespecific and brake duty-cycle testing to support vehicle acceptance and providing a stepping-stone between desktop/bench-tests and ontrack trials.

He described the improvements to traction and energy systems as: wheel-slip

route energy cycle evaluation for proving hybrid drive solutions.

Professor Iwnicki said that HAROLD 2.0 is expected to be ready for operation by summer 2022.

Robotic Train Maintenance A new lab to investigate the use of robotics for train maintenance is almost complete, but not yet open.

The facility comprised two industrial robots either side of a

Suspension designers can select parameters for these two components to provide the best possible performance for specific requirements.

An inerter (not to be confused with an inverter) is a third component which provides a force proportional to the acceleration between its two ends. In its mechanical form it consists of a flywheel forced to rotate as the ends of the inerter move relative to each other. Using an inerter gives suspension designers more possibilities for optimising suspension performance.

Active components (such as electric or hydraulic actuators) or semi-active components (such as switchable or variable dampers) can be used to improve performance further, but they require complex controllers and a power supply.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

105

106

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

COUNTDOWN

TO

Railtex and Infrarail

T

he countdown has started to the spring edition of Railtex / Infrarail 2022, the number one showcase for railway technology and infrastructure in the UK. Taking place on 10-12 May at Olympia London, the event will once again bring together the entire industry, presenting the latest developments in sustainable and smart rail operations.

After a successful restart in September 2021, the coming edition promises plenty of products and services, impressive on-track displays, and a high-profile conference programme.

“Last September was all about restoring opportunities for the rail sector to finally reconnect and meet in person” said Olaf Freier, Railtex / Infrarail Portfolio Director on behalf of event organiser Mack-Brooks Exhibitions. “For the upcoming show in May, we will intensify our efforts to further promote and support the rail industry’s progress in the post-pandemic world which will very much depend on the successful delivery of technology across the network.”

Visitors can expect an impressive array of technologies and innovations on display, with exhibits covering rolling stock technology, track and infrastructure, signalling and communications, vehicle maintenance equipment, rolling stock leasing, electronics, and many other specialised products for the efficient and safe operation of rail and public transport systems.

The popular On-Track Display Area, sponsored

by British Steel, will once again give buyers the opportunity to see track-related equipment in an authentic rail setting, and the exhibition’s two-stream Conference Programme will feature a broad range of topics and sessions to address key challenges and opportunities facing the rail industry. The conference programme is again sponsored by partner RIA, and all sessions are free to attend and CPD certified.

In addition to all of this, the Recruitment Wall will provide opportunities to discuss career options within this exciting industry. Powered by www.RailwayPeople.com (part of Rail Media Group), the Recruitment Wall will feature a live feed displaying exhibitor’s vacancies. Interested candidates will be able to speak with recruiters directly or can apply online.

For more information, including the latest list of Exhibitors please visit www.railtex.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

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

ON TRACK FOR THE FUTURE

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

• Infrastructure • Rolling Stock • Rail+

• Passenger Experience • Net Zero • And many more

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

Recruitment wall Plant and machinery exhibits

REGISTER NOW

www.railtex.co.uk

Organiser:

Mallatite Limited & VMS Rail are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Hill & Smith Holdings PLC, we are delighted to announce VMS Rail will now operate as a division of Mallatite Limited, within the Hill & Smith group of companies.

People

Process

Product

VMS Rail will trade as Mallatite Rail within the Transport & Technology Division.

Mallatite Retaining VMS RAIL PEOPLE , PROCESSES and PRODUCTS. Mallatite Rail have retained the People, Processes & Products from VMS Rail and you can also expect to receive the same superior quality from our products and high levels of customer service from our people.

Infrastructure through innovation has always been at the core of Mallatite Limited. The addition of VMS Rail provides Mallatite Limited with the opportunity to connect infrastructure within the rail industry and develop existing/new products & technology within the sector.

“Having worked with VMS /Mallatite for a number of years, I can confidently say their quality and customer service is unrivaled. Throughout the challenges of COVID and global supply issues, they worked tirelessly to supply high quality products enabling large-scale projets to be successfully implemented; overcoming any issues that were put their way” Georgina Kinsey - Network Rail - Project Manager

“Having worked with VMS/Mallatite Rail for a number of years, I can say their stand out feature is their customer service. Through the challenges of COVID and arising project issues, they worked tirelessly to reconfigure and supply products; enabling the Manchester Piccadilly Project to be delivered to a high quality, on-time and with a product that the train operating companies are greatly benefitting from” Richard Wright Senior Project Engineer (Signalling) VolkerRail

“ VMS/Mallatite have been very pro-active in working with Network Rail and developing bespoke products for the Birmingham New Street Resignalling Project. They have assisted us in every step of problem identification through to product acceptance” Ian Eason - Network Rail - Project Delivery Engineering Manager, North West and Central Region

RISQS Verified SUPPLIER 8858

Network Rail Accepted

Mallatite Rail will be exhibiting at Railtex / Infrarail 10 - 12th May 2022 at Olympia London.

Please come and visit us on stand D79.

WIN!

A foldable ELECTRIC BIKE! Perfect for commuting and taking with you on public transport.

VISIT US ON STAND D79 FOR YOUR CHANCE TO WIN!

Mallatite play a key role in supporting infrastructure, transport, construction, telecommunications and our communities. The Mallatite brand offers an extensive product portfolio that ranges from bollards, sign lights, pedestrian equipment, traffic & commercial signs, steel and passively safe posts and columns, signals, interactive signs, airfield signals, bus shelter maintenance and subway lighting. Mallatite looks forward to developing with it’s customers and leading innovation for the marketplace.

CONNECTING INFRASTRUCTURE “Siemens have commissioned VMS/Mallatite signals and cables over the last 5 years on projects within the West Midlands and they have accommodated acceleration requests, change requests and have always been on-hand to provide support where required” Carl Miller Senior Materials Interface Engineer Siemens Mobility Limited

Transport & Technology Division www.mallatite.co.uk “The team are now fully operational in our new North East premises bringing with us a combined 140 years of industry experience. We are looking forward to welcoming new and existing customers, understanding industry challenges and solving problems with our technology” Claire Thompson Business Manager - Mallatite Rail Tel: +44 (0)191 933 1740 Mob: +44 (0)7500 967656 Email: Claire.thompson@mallatite.co.uk

railsales@mallatite.co.uk

www.mallatite.co.uk

Transport & Technology Division Incorporating Mallatite Rail Mallatite Rail Unit B, Baltic Park, Saltmeadows Road, Gateshead, NE8 3DA

Transport & Technology Unit 5, Clarendon Drive, The Parkway, Tipton, DY4 0QA

110

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Providing talented professionals Advanced Resource Managers (ARM)

(ARM) works with some of the biggest consultancies, best-known contractors and busiest local authorities in the UK. Considered true experts within the industry, ARM’s rail consultants possess

Quality and professionalism E86

a combined 25 years’ experience and specialise in permanent, contract and fixed term placements across a broad range of skillsets for this very niche sector.

ARM is proud to work with a wide range of businesses across a number of sub-sectors within rail and infrastructure. It supplies talented professionals to customers who work in multiple disciplines and have delivered complex assignments for some of the industry’s leading specialist companies, including client organisations, design consultancies, cost engineers, and contractors, based both in the UK and around the world.

Leading manufacturer of drainage and cable management materials Aqua Fabrications Ltd

C51

Since 1988 ‘AQUA’ have supplied the rail industry with a comprehensive range of drainage systems. Slotted plastic drainage pipes (TDK) were soon followed by plastic catch-pits. Our geocomposite department, Aqua Geocomposites manufactures geomembranes and geotextiles, fully integrated drainage systems for use in the Permanent-Way are now available.

Aqua’s 34,000 sq ft fabrication department uses the latest techniques in training and equipment. Catch-pits, UTX chambers and fittings are all made in-house and to the best quality We also offer a unique bespoke fabrication service, in which we can fabricate to any design.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Anderton Concrete

Anderton Concrete has its roots deeply set in traditions, manufacturing excellence and dedication to customer service that have existed for many years. The company has been manufacturing precast concrete products for over 60 years and, as such, the name Anderton Concrete Products has become synonymous with product quality and deliverability within the rail industry.

Anderton Concrete is part of Ibstock plc, a group of companies which manufactures and distributes a wide range of products servicing a breadth of construction needs. The group’s product offering

C78

ranges from walling, roofing, rail and infrastructure to garden and landscaping, flooring and groundwork, bespoke services and much more.

High-performance steel products British Steel

G50

We’ll be located on Stand G50, TA3, TA4, and TA5, where we’ll be promoting our wide range of high-performance steel products and associated services, each designed to help the rail industry achieve longer infrastructure life with fewer maintenance requirements.

We’re delighted to once again be the official ‘On-Track’ sponsor, supplying 18m of rail track, and demonstrating some of our awardwinning products and services: » HP335 for improved wear and rolling contact fatigue resistance » Zinoco® coated rail for extending life in corrosive environments » Weathering steel structural sections for exposed bridges, buildings and catenary gantries » Rail technical services to help improve operational efficiency and network integrity As a founder member, we’ll also be representing the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN), highlighting our Centre of Excellence in Infrastructure research projects aimed at improving the life cycle of our rail products and hence reducing their embedded carbon content.

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

SMART STEEL FOR SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS As the UK’s only manufacturer of rail and heavy structural sections, we have a well-established track record in developing innovative infrastructure solutions for the rail sector.

Designed for longer railway life with fewer maintenance requirements, our premium product range addresses the issues of wear, RCF and corrosion.

Join us at Railtex/Infrarail stand G50 and discover how we can help you succeed.

T | +44 (0)1724 404040 E | rail@britishsteel.co.uk @BritishSteelUK

UK rail news as it happens.

UKRRIN Founder Member

Daily email update.

Latest rail video.

Over 15,000 rail articles.

www.railuk.com Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

111

112

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Complete workforce solutions E78

Ganymede Solutions

Ganymede specialises in recruiting the best technical and engineering talent, and providing complete workforce

solutions to help build and maintain infrastructure and transportation for a wide range of UK clients.

As part of the RTC Group, an AIM-listed recruitment group, Ganymede is a market leader in providing a diverse range of people solutions to the rail, energy, construction, highways and transportation sectors.

With offices strategically located across the country, it provides its clients with the benefit of a national network of skilled personnel combined with local expertise.

Talk to Ganymede for all your people resourcing needs including labour supply, white and blue collar recruitment, and executive search.

Intelligent, sustainable solutions Mallatite

Mallatite is an established manufacturer and distributor of traffic management, sign posts, and street lighting products, and part of the Hill & Smith Holdings PLC Roads Infrastructure Division.

Following the integration of Signature Limited to the Mallatite Brand as of August 2016, Mallatite now has three site locations - Oldbury, Chesterfield, and Inchinnan, where manufacturing takes place - complemented by a sales and distribution network throughout the UK. Mallatite’s extensive product portfolio ranges from bollards, signlights, pedestrian equipment, signs, steel and passively-safe posts

D79

and columns, signals and interactive signs, to airfield signals, bus shelters and subway lighting. Its intelligent products are designed with sustainability and innovation in mind.

Celebrating the heart of the rail industry, its people B01

RailStaff Awards

careers turned around and adversity conquered.

The RailStaff Awards is the only rail industry awards that celebrates its people, and: » Raises the profile of sponsors and employers alike. » Entertains guests at the rail industry’s biggest party. » Encourages networking in a relaxed and friendly environment. » Recognises those employees who go the extra mile.

Join us this year as we honour more unsung heroes of the railway.

This year's awards will be held on Thursday 24th November 2022 at The NEC, Birmingham.

For more information or to nominate someone, please visit www.RailStaffAwards.com Since 1997, RailStaff has reported on the dedication, courage and bravery of many individuals who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, yet there was no-one saying 'thank you' or 'well done'. RailStaff wanted to change that. So the RailStaff Awards was launched in

2007, to recognise the great achievements of all the amazing people who work on the railway.

The ceremony shows appreciation for the people who deliver the railway from drivers to cleaners, and engineers to station staff. Often these are stories of lives saved,

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

T H E

R A I L S T A F F

A W A R D S

2 0 2 2

MORE THAN AN AWARD Let’s recognise those who are outstanding, those that go above and beyond, those who are special. They need to know just how much they are appreciated.

Apprentice of the Year

Health & Wellbeing Award

Rail Engineer of the Year

Award for Charity

HR, Diversity & Inclusion Person or Team Award

Rail Manager of the Year

Covid Hero - Outstanding Individual Award Covid Heroes - Outstanding Team Award Customer Service Award

Learning & Development Award Lifetime Achievement Award Marketing & Communications Team Award

Depot Staff Award Digital Railway (S&T) Person or Team Award

Rail Civils / Infrastructure Team Award

Rail Person of the Year Rail Project Manager Award Rail Team of the Year Safety Person or Team Award Samaritans Lifesaver Award Station Staff Award

Graduate or Newcomer Award

NOMINATE TODAY! www.railstaffawards.com THE NEC, BIRMINGHAM // 24TH NOVEMBER 2022

114

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Connecting the UK rail industry for over 25 years B01

Rail Media

Rail Media, the UK’s leading media group dedicated to the rail industry, gives companies the chance to connect.

We want to help – whether it’s keeping you informed about industry news, introducing you to like-minded professionals or finding that ideal candidate for a role within your company.

We publish two industryleading magazines, RailStaff and Rail Engineer.

As well as all the latest news, RailStaff carries articles on training and skills, has regular features on wellbeing, health and safety, freight, and covers major industry events, while being the home of recruitment and careers.

Rail Engineer is the leading independent, free, quality monthly magazine for rail engineers, project managers, directors and executive decision-makers. It is essential reading for everyone involved or interested in the engineering side of railways.

Besides publishing the latest up-to-date railway engineering news, our writing team of experienced engineers reports on the engineering and technical aspects of many of the major projects being undertaken day in - day out, above and below ground, and across the globe.

We also run the largest rail job site RailwayPeople.com and organise conferences and

awards events such as the 'Rail Safety Summit' and 'The RailStaff Awards'.

Connecting the UK rail industry for over 25 years. www.rail-media.com

Matching skills with opportunities Recruitment Wall (powered by RailwayPeople.com)

Recruitment and retention are key concerns for companies throughout the rail industry supply chain. The existing skills shortage, coupled with demands for experienced staff from other industries, will put more emphasis than ever on the challenges of finding - and retaining - the skills that companies rely on to deliver projects on time and on budget.

Powered by RailwayPeople. com, the rail industry’s leading online job board, the Railtex Recruitment Wall gives exhibitors the chance to promote their vacancies to the wider Rail Industry and provides a central focus for those looking for new career

opportunities with marketleading employers.

Whether you are a candidate, a recruiter, an employment agency, involved in labour supply or just want to see what’s out there, check out the Recruitment Wall on stand B16.

Launched in 2001, RailwayPeople.com provides the perfect platform to fill your vacancies.

We know that attracting the right candidates to your career opportunities is important so we offer a range of products and services to help you achieve this.

Alongside its growing database and long-term relationships, RailwayPeople.com offers a wealth of advertising options

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

B16 helping to ensure you maximise your reach to the wider rail industry.

The RailwayPeople.com platform which provides a fully responsive site along with improved search capabilities and search engine optimisation will soon launch an all new site with new features that will help recruiters and candidates get a much improved service.

As all great recruiters are aware, it is attracting the right candidate for your role that is important so we offer a range of helpful facilities to help you do just that.

Contact us to find out more about the options and solutions available. Please visit: www.RailwayPeople.com

THE UK’S LEADING MEDIA GROUP DEDICATED TO THE RAIL INDUSTRY

Connecting the UK rail industry for over 25 years.

Find Rail Media on Stand B01 and RailwayPeople.com Careers Wall on Stand B16.

Rail Media continues to support Young Rail Professionals (YRP) who are co-located on Stand B01.

www.rail-media.com

116

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Improving health and safety Safe systems for the future D65

RSSB

Since 2003, the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) has been helping its members to continually improve health, safety and wellbeing performance.

By being part of the RSSB, you are better able to collaborate with others, help shape solutions to issues of concern and benefit from the positive results and efficiencies.

Through research, standards, analysis and insight, the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) drives improvements in health and wellbeing, and in delivering a safer, more efficient and sustainable rail system. It works in a close collaborative partnership with its members to ensure that all areas of their operations are as safe and efficient as possible.

Safety critical solutions

ilway Ad-Jan21-AW.qxp_Layout 1 04/02/2021 12:59 Page 1

C72

Sella Controls

E36

Schweizer Electronic

As a market leader in track worker safety and level crossings, Schweizer Electronic’s innovative, cost-effective solutions are deployed extensively in the support of safety on track.

Schweizer Electronic has designed, manufactured, and installed level crossings

and track worker protection systems across Europe for over 50 years. Now fully approved in the UK for its Flex MSL crossings and Lynx Automatic Track Warning Systems, it is now focused on how these products can develop into the safe systems for the future.

Deep tech innovation Telent Technology Services Ltd

D69

Telent is a leading technology company and specialist in the design, build, support and management of the UK’s critical digital infrastructure, drawing on decades of experience in mission critical communications and technology.

Key to its success is its talented staff, who have expert knowledge of the industries Telent operates in, the mission critical systems the company works on and the technologies it works with.

Sella Controls is a premier supplier of Control and Safety Critical Solutions to the UK and global rail industry. Established in 1974, it has supplied fully integrated solutions across the world for both Rail Infrastructure and Mobile Solutions.

The company offers a full turnkey solution from conceptual Sella Controls is an independent company design through to completion andengineering post handover maintenance specialising services. in the design and supply of integrated safety and control solutions for the rail industry.

At Railtex / Infrarail, Sella Controls will be showcasing a range of solutions that demonstrate the range of its capabilities including Infrastructure Solutions Mobile Solutions TRACKLINK Electrification SCADA TRACKLINK ASDO/CSDE Solutions Traction Power Control, Depot Control, ASDO and Level Crossing TRACKLINK Substation Automation TRAINNET ASDO GNSS/Odometry Solutions Control.

Rail Depot Control TRAINNET TCMS Solutions

RAIL SOLUTIONS ® ®

®

® ®

Level Crossing Controllers SISS Telecommunications Tunnel Ventilation SCADA

Integrated Control Rail Engineer Station Management Systems

Over Speed Protection Systems Traction Power Control Rail Assurance Consultancy SIL Determination & Assurance Independent Safety Assessment

| Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

RA ILW AYP EO PLE .CO M

TH EL AR GE ST WE DEDI BS CAT ITE E IN T D RA HE IL C UK ARE ER S

THE CHANGING FACE OF RAIL

WHETHER YOU’RE NEW TO THE INDUSTRY OR LOOKING FOR A NEW CHALLENGE

VISIT WWW.RAILWAYPEOPLE.COM TODAY

way People.com

118

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Deep tech innovation C65

Thales

Thales (Euronext Paris: HO) is a global leader in advanced technologies, investing in digital and ‘deep tech’ innovations – connectivity,

big data, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and quantum computing – to build a confident future crucial for the development of our societies.

The group provides its customers – businesses, organisations and governments – in the defence, aeronautics, space, transport, digital identity and security domains with solutions, services, and products that help them fulfil their critical role.

This May, Thales will be providing demonstrations of a wide range of rail solutions from across its mainline rail, urban rail, and digital services portfolios.

High value rail services Yellow Rail

Yellow Rail is the service arm of the Yellow Group of companies, delivering safety critical services to passenger and freight sectors in the UK, from its Derby service centre site or remotely.

Yellow provides high value (safety critical) rail services and innovative

F94 niche technologies to its rail clients, to improve their asset performance, availability, and end user experience; whilst providing opportunity for its talented workforce to continually develop to meet the challenges they face and to ensure a good return for its shareholders.

Inspiring the next generation B01

Young Rail Professionals (YRP)

Young Rail Professionals (YRP) was founded in 2009 to promote the rail industry as a great place to work, inspire the next generation of railway talent and develop young people to reach their potential.

YRP brings together people from all aspects of the industry, whether they are involved in engineering, asset management, train operations, strategic planning, maintenance, franchising, regulation, marketing, human relations or otherwise.

There is no age limit to becoming a member – generally, our events are aimed at members with 10 years or less experience in their rail career.

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

We are a not-for-profit organisation led by committees of volunteers and governed by our constitution.

Membership is free and we do not charge for any of our professional development events or ambassador activities. Our networking events are subsidised to ensure they are affordable and accessible to all our members.

We are grateful to our Corporate Members who cover the operating costs of YRP and subsidise many activities for our members.

To learn more about the YRP and speak with our executive committee, please visit us on stand B01.

120

RAILTEX / INFRARAIL

Reducing risk in rail depots D17

Zonegreen

RSSB data shows there has been no notable reduction in workforce harm at rail depots in the last five years.

Don’t be fooled into thinking this is because the risks are already low. The safety board’s latest Annual Health and Safety Report showed depots accounted for 20% of all workforce harm in 2020/21 and a third of all fatalities in the last five years.

You might also be surprised to learn that although empty coaching stock (typically moved around in maintenance environments) makes up only 4% of train service, it is responsible for 20% of the signals passed at danger nationally.

So why do depots continue to expose workers to such high levels of risk and why is the industry not placing greater emphasis on reducing potential threats to worker safety?

Statistical analysis of depot safety We all know depots are dangerous places - moving vehicles, high voltage electricity and powerful machinery are part of everyday life - but it is possible to evaluate their safety requirements.

A reliability assessment is a statistical process for applying historical failure data to the proposed design and configuration of safety systems. The result is known as the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) and is defined as the relative risk reduction provided by the technology.

In simple terms, SIL is a measurement of the performance required for a safety instrumented function to be appropriate.

An impartial assessment determined that for a depot protection system to allow safe vehicle movements around maintenance facilities, it should meet the demands of SIL 2. To demonstrate compliance, the system needs to be assessed in full, and both hardware and software must be developed in line with recommended techniques and measures from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Sheffield-based rail safety specialist, Zonegreen, works tirelessly to develop ways to reduce risk in maintenance facilities. To this end, its flagship Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS) has been SIL 2 certified.

DPPS allows the safe and effective control of vehicles in depots, providing physical protection to workers. The functional assessment carried out covered the whole system and the results were conclusive. Its hardware and software has been independently assessed as satisfying the clauses of IEC61508 to the rigour and content required by a SIL 2 integrity requirement.

DPPS has been specifically designed to mitigate the risks faced by maintenance staff and because it is an off the shelf product that is configured to each depot layout, every installation now comes with the reassurance of SIL 2.

Meet Zonegreen at Railtex Zonegreen will be showcasing its market-leading DPPS at Railtex on May 10-12, on stand D17 at Olympia in London. Throughout the event, the firm’s technical director and global expert in depot protection, Christian Fletcher, will be delivering informative and educational workshops about the risks to staff in maintenance depots.

To register your interest in attending Zonegreen’s Railtex workshops or for more information about its suite of safety systems, telephone (0114) 230 0822 or visit www.zonegreen.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

Are You Tired of Digging Ballast?

Are you COSS and ES qualified?

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

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

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

(3E)S

2

=

Exceeding Expectations Everywhere Safely & Sustainably

CAREERS

ALSTOM AND ADVANCE TRS ARE SEEKING PROJECT ENGINEERING MANAGERS The engineering teams support some of the most significant projects within the UK, including Resignalling, Enhancement projects and the digital railway initiative.

An ideal candidate will produce, deliver and verify safety related Signalling design deliverables at a principle and system level in accordance with the client specific requirements, appropriate railway standards and technical constraints.

ADVANCE-TRS.COM

01483 361 061 | info@advance-trs.com

Find your role!

Job r upda oles te daily d

What is RailwayPeople.com?

RailwayPeople.com is the largest dedicated rail job board in the UK. How can it help me?

With the top career opportunities updated daily, your next move is a fingertip away.

What should I do?

Visit RailwayPeople.com today to find your next role and become an essential part of the UK’s rail industry to help the nation build back better.

way People

visit: www.RailwayPeople.com / email: rp@rail-media.com / telephone: 01530 816 450

Rail Engineer | Issue 195 | Mar-Apr 2022

123

Find out how everyone is working together to improve health and safety on our railways

Get involved in Leading Health and Safety on Britain’s Railway

www.rssb.co.uk/LHSBR