Rail Engineer - Issue 201 | March-April 2023

GORE-TEX PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY. TRUSTED & DURABLE FOUL WEATHER PROTECTION.

INSIST ON THE BEST. INSIST ON GORE-TEX GARMENTS.

For over 38 years, GORE-TEX Professional and its licensed manufacturing brand partners have been supplying and protecting UK rail workers with extremely durable hi-visibility foul weather garments for all seasons.

GORE-TEX Product Technology shields end users from heavy rain, snow and wind in real working conditions. In milder weather conditions, wearer comfort is not compromised thanks to its excellent breathability. For more information: www.goretexprofessional.com/uk

36|

38|

44| 50|

56|

Minding the gap

Keeping our railway safe depends on reliable data about the assets adjacent to it. Network Rail enlisted Atkins to develop a solution.

Remodelling Carstairs Junction

The 50-year-old layout at Carstairs Junction was designed for the train service of its time. David Shirres considers its modernisation.

All change at Crewe

In 2021, Rail Engineer reported on the BHIL resignalling. Paul Darlington returns to look at the whole programme.

Signalling – a fresh, new approach

The expense associated with signalling has been a concern for many years. How can the industry reduce the costs?

What next for mobile telecoms technology?

Mobile telecoms technology has dramatically improved in the last 40 years, but where do we go from here?

22|

Intelligent autonomous vehicles and level crossings

Poor road user behaviour affects rail safety and places level crossing users in danger. Can autonomous road vehicle technology save lives?

Another candidate for safer level crossings

Great Britain’s level crossings are among the safest in Europe, but IHI Corporation’s Obstacle Detection technology may make them safer.

Decarbonising Transport Week

Reducing transport carbon was discussed and debated during Decarbonising Transport Week between 6-10 March. David Shirres reports. 26|

Traeth Mawr timber trestle railway viaduct

Amco Giffen was contracted by Network Rail to refurbish the viaduct crossing at Traeth Mawr, just outside Porthmadog, North Wales.

32

32|

HS2's innovative green tunnels

Bob Wright covers the construction of HS2’s green tunnels, with five being built during the project’s first phase.

76|

Network Rail’s introduction of new technology?

David Shirres considers RIA’s Railway Innovation Strategy and the ORR’s Targeted Assurance Review, both of which cover technological innovation.

66|

60| 70|

Enhancing safety – an Indian ATP alternative

In its search for an automatic train protection system, Indian Railways has developed its own solution. Clive Kessell reports.

Progress with the 4LM project

The 4LM project is London Underground’s biggest resignalling project to date, encompassing the Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City, Circle, and District lines.

Testing modern signalling systems

With signalling becoming more complicated, interconnected, and software-controlled, how can engineers ensure systems are tested correctly?

82|

90|

96|

Growing rail freight

Despite the industry bringing in £2.5 billion annually, we must move more freight off the roads and onto the rails.

Rail Safety Summit 2023

The Rail Safety Summit returns and getting the safety message across remains as important as ever.

Get ready for Railtex 2023

Calling at Birmingham’s NEC on 9-11 May, visitors can expect an impressive array of innovations at Railtex 2023.

Modal shift is essential

Decarbonising Transport Week (DTW) demonstrated how much needs to be done for transportation to achieve the legally binding target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Weaning road vehicles, ships, and planes off energy-dense petroleum is a huge challenge. The net zero alternatives of hydrogen and particularly batteries, store much less energy whilst ‘sustainable’ fuels are an expensive transitional solution.

Government announcements imply that innovation will solve these problems. For example, Grant Shapps considers that “guilt-free flying is within our reach” following an announcement of £110 million to support net zero aviation innovation. Yet liquid hydrogen, the only viable net zero aviation option, is decades away. Though there will be battery capacity improvements, no-one is seriously suggesting that batteries can come close to petroleum’s energy density. The inconvenient and little-publicised truth is that vehicles with less-dense net zero power will come at a cost.

For rail this is not a problem as electric trains are the only transport mode which not only offer potential net zero high-speed, heavy-haul transport but also improve performance and reduce operational costs. Moreover, the low rolling resistance of steel wheel on steel also makes rail the most energy efficient form of land transport.

This explains why the DTW presentations generally focused on new forms of net zero power whilst those from the rail sector emphasised the need for modal shift from road and air to rail. Clearly any rational transport decarbonisation strategy should maximise use of the lowest carbon, most energy efficient, mode.

Yet the case for the capacity to accommodate such modal shift does not seem to be recognised. For example, sadly, polls show most wish to see HS2 scrapped. Moreover, statistics from the Department for Transport (DfT) show that air has six times the carbon impact of rail. However, our page 6 Notice points out that

an assessment of respective actual energy consumption shows a London to Glasgow flight is about 60 times worse for the environment than rail.

Our ‘Growing Rail Freight’ reports on Rail Partners’ call for rail freight to be trebled by 2050, to remove 20 million HGV journeys each year. Accommodating this and increasing passenger traffic requires a significant increase in rail capacity. Electrification, which reduces the performance differential between freight and passenger trains, is one way of achieving this.

HS2, including a link north of Crewe, is also essential for a significant increase in capacity, especially for West Coast Mainline Line freight. Yet, when operating from Old Oak Common, HS2’s benefits will be significantly reduced. Without its Euston terminus, billions will have been spent on a new HS2 line that can only operate at a

fraction of its capacity. There is a reason why busy main lines require terminal stations with many platforms.

The DfT’s 2021 Decarbonising Transport plan commits to encouraging modal shift of road freight to rail through HS2 (which has since been cut back) and the upgrades in Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline (which has not been updated for over three years). The plan also commits to an ambitious programme of electrification including infill electrification to increase electric haulage of freight which, two years later, has yet to be announced.

Thus, whilst the need for modal shift is acknowledged, there is insufficient action to achieve it. Although rail investment offers huge benefits, the industry’s high costs weaken the case for it. For example, budget increases from £2.6 billion to £4.8 billion for

HS2’s London Euston station and from £1.1 billion to £2.8 billion for the Great Western electrification programme.

Introducing new technology can bring cost savings, though implementing innovations can be problematic as the ORR’s report on Network Rail’s introduction of new technology explains. We explain why this should be essential reading for those concerned with rail innovations. Digital twins are an innovation that was used to good effect on the extensive remodelling of the 50-year-old track layout at Carstairs junction, as described in our report on this project.

Replacing Treath Mawr trestle viaduct’s structural timbers required more traditional engineering skills and presented significant environmental and logistical challenges as Carl Baker describes. In contrast, Bob Wright reports on the modern day ‘cut and cover’ construction of HS2’s five green tunnels which, in total, are 7.8km long.

HS2 is to fund £4 billion of the £5.7 billion Crewe hub programme which consists of 22 individual projects including overdue major re-signalling projects, as Paul Darlington reports. How this will be affected by the two-year deferral of HS2 phase 2 remains to be seen. A current signalling project, London Underground’s Four Lines Modernisation (4LM), is using Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) to significantly increase capacity. As Clive Kessell reports, 4LM is a large and complex project of which eight of its 14 stages have been commissioned.

Another form of digital signalling which provides in-cab signalling and Automatic Train Protection (ATP) is the KAVACH system developed by Indian Railways. As we report, its functionality is very similar to ETCS although it is cheaper to install as it is provided as an overlay to the existing signalling system with no requirement to remove signals, at least initially. Indian Railways is to be congratulated for this pragmatic, cost effective approach to ATP and increasing capacity.

CBTC and other digital signalling requires an ultra-reliable telecoms network whilst the everincreasing need for operational and customer service date will require an order of magnitude increase in data transmission. For this, we consider the likely telecoms trends towards 2030 and beyond. Another trend on which we report is the development of new signalling testing techniques including fuzz testing and the use of digital twins that are needed as signalling becomes ever more complicated and interconnected, whilst ETCS is moving signals into the cab.

Although Britain has one of the safest railways in Europe, our wide-ranging report on this year’s Rail Safety Summit highlighted various areas of concern. Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) Chief Inspector Andrew Hall noted ‘Beware - rarely is not never’. He was one of a wide range of speakers who generated a high level of discussion during the presentations and whilst networking afterwards.

Editor

David Shirres

david.shirres@railengineer.co.uk

Production Editor

Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com

Production and design

Lauren Williamson lauren@rail-media.com

Adam O’Connor adam@rail-media.com

Engineering writers

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

Advertising

Asif Ahmed asif@rail-media.com Chris Davies chris@rail-media.com Craig Smith craig@rail-media.com

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

Rail Engineer Videos

http://rail.media/REYouTube

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

Free controlled circulation

Email: subscribe@rail-media.com

The small print

DAVID SHIRRES RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

Networking is one of the great things about Railtex which takes place between 9-11 May. Our preview feature also highlights its conference programme and describes some of the exhibitors who will be there, which of course includes Rail Engineer. Do come to see us to say hello.

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

DAVID SHIRRES

DfT undersells modal shift

In 2021, the Department for Transport (DfT) published transport and environmental statistics for various journeys which included Glasgow to London. However, the true carbon impact of these journeys, considering actual energy consumption, shows the DfT statistics significantly underestimate both the climate benefits of electric rail traction and the harm done by domestic aviation.

Although an inter-city electric train has only 27% the emissions of a diesel train, DfT statistics do not consider the difference the electric and diesel rail traction.

On the chart below, direct emissions are those produced by the vehicle itself and indirect emissions are those from getting fuel or electricity to the vehicle. Indirect effects are those from climate-affecting non-CO2 aircraft emissions at high altitudes.

As the trains between Glasgow and London are electric trains, an obvious issue is that DfT statistics show them to have a high proportion of direct emissions when in reality, like an electric car, they only have indirect emissions. This is because the DfT does not have a consistent approach to road and rail emission statistics. For rail it uses a national conversion factor that aggregates diesel and electric traction, whereas road vehicles are considered by the power source.

The DfT also uses generic conversion factors to estimate climate impact instead of using actual energy consumption to provide a more realistic estimate. Assessment of the carbon impact per passenger for Glasgow-to-London journeys derived in this way are shown below.

This includes the electricity consumption of a Class 390 train from an industry source. As this source is unattributable, it has been sense checked against a paper published by Professor

Roger Kemp of the University of Lancaster which quotes RSSB research showing that, in 2006, a Class 390 unit had emissions of 50g per passenger. This was on the basis of a 40% load factor compared with the 70% load factor in the above calculation. In 2006, the carbon intensity of the grid was 511g CO2/kWh compared with the 2020 figure of 193g CO2/kWh.

With adjustments for load factor and current grid carbon density, this gives current Class 390 emissions of 11g per passenger km which equates to 6.9kg for the 645 rail km between London and Glasgow. This is comparable with the estimate of 4.9kg based on the industry source, especially as this source considered that the original RSSB figure did not take full account of the benefit of regenerative braking.

The Kemp paper also shows that in 2006 a diesel HST unit had emissions of 70g CO2 per passenger km. For the same load factor, the Class 390 now has emissions of 19g CO2 per passenger km due to the significant reduction in grid carbon density since 2006. Hence, an electric inter-city train has 27% of the CO2e emissions of a diesel train.

The above calculations highlight the importance of modal shift to rail. Unless the above can be shown to be flawed, it has to be accepted that DfT’s assessment of comparative journey emissions is misleading.

Rail Minister visits Mountfield Tunnel

Rail Minister Huw Merriman visited Network Rail colleagues on Wednesday 12 April to see the progress being made upgrading track and strengthening embankments along this key commuter line between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings. The line was closed from Friday 7 April to Saturday 15 April.

Fiona Taylor, Network Rail’s Kent route director, hosted the visit during which the Rail Minister joined engineers inside Mountfield Tunnel near Robertsbridge, where worn out track is being replaced.

Inside the tunnel, the existing track slab – a concrete block which supports the track, conductor rail and tunnel structure – is being removed. Built in the 1970s, it needs replacing after 50 years of wear and tear.

A new track slab, reinforced with four tonnes of metal bars, will be installed plus 900 metres of specially coated track, specifically designed to withstand tunnel environments.

Elsewhere on the line, engineers are working tirelessly to complete a number of other vital upgrades, surveys, monitoring, and general maintenance to support the reliable running of the railway.

At Wadhurst and Frant, sections of a reinforced concrete wall will be built to prevent trees and soil reaching the tracks.

On sections of the line near Snape Wood, 230 five-metre-long soil nails will be driven into the cutting with 600m2 of wire mesh to stop material falling onto tracks below.

Once complete, this work will increase the reliability of this important line, built 170 years ago.

Fiona said: “It was a pleasure to welcome the Rail Minister to see first-hand the work we’re doing to improve the reliability of this important line between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings which carries around 120,000 passengers a week between Kent and London.

“It’s a really complex part of the railway which was built in the 1850s along very hilly ground, which meant that the Victorian engineers had to excavate steep cuttings, long tunnels and build miles of embankment. As a result of its age and geographical

setting, this stretch of line has required regular repairs and upgrades to maintain its reliability.

“While there is never a good time to shut the railway, completing the work in an extended closure means that we can avoid causing more disruption to customers by having to close the railway over a series of weekends.

“We’d like to thank customers and local residents for their patience and understanding while we carry out these essential works.”

Rail Minister Huw Merriman said: “The Hasting to Tunbridge Wells mainline is a key commuter route for those travelling across East Sussex and Kent and I was pleased to see the ongoing work to improve reliability for those passengers.

“From track upgrades to strengthening the embankments, these improvements will deliver a more resilient and dependable rail network for years to come, and I’d like to thank local residents for their patience while these works are carried out.”

Network Rail’s partner for Mountfield Tunnel project was Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group (UK). The firm was awarded the Southern Slab Refurbishment project back in 2020, but planned works were cancelled in October 2022, at Network Rail’s request, to perform emergency works on a short section of concrete slab. This led to the latest stage replacing 500 metres of track, including 250 metres of concrete track slab.

Rhomberg

Sersa Rail Group

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

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

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

Proud to support the Mountfield Tunnel Project

Hitachi Rail to test tech at GCRE

In a major boost for the UK rail supply chain, Hitachi has announced it will test new British-built trains, battery technology, and digital solutions at the Global Centre of Rail Excellence (GCRE) - the purpose-built rail innovation centre being constructed in south Wales.

Once the GCRE is complete, Hitachi will use the £400 million facility to test future rolling stock and battery technology. The organisations also see an opportunity to make the site a hub for digital rail technology by testing both digital signalling and infrastructure monitoring solutions.

Hitachi has developed digital solutions that can automate track, overhead lines and vegetation monitoring, to pinpoint faults and reduce costs. GCRE can support next stages of development, which include using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to predict areas at risk of a fault and worthy of preventative maintenance.

Hitachi has 187 intercity trains in passenger service with European Train Control System (ETCS), this creates an opportunity to test future upgrades of ETCS to ensure a seamless transition in digital signalling.

Currently, testing new technology takes place on the existing UK rail network. Understandably, track access and testing time is restricted so passengers are not affected. The GCRE facility will increase flexibility and opportunities to conduct testing, shortening the timeline to improve and validate new innovations. GCRE will help modernise the railway by closing the gap between development and adoption.

Furthermore, testing Hitachi’s rail technology will help create a new digital skills-base at the Welsh site, and support jobs in the wider supply chain.

The site will provide services for a UK and European market. Currently, there is no dedicated, purpose-built facility for rail infrastructure testing in Europe, nor is there a railway test loop of this scale anywhere in the UK.

“This partnership reinforces Hitachi’s commitment to UK

innovation and supply chain, which has already seen us spend over £2.6 billion in the UK since 2015,” said Jim Brewin, head of UK & Ireland at Hitachi Rail.

“Through this initial agreement, we’re proud to help GCRE realise its potential and ambition to become a global hub for rail innovation. Being able to test British trains and technology at the test loop in Wales will ultimately benefit both rail passengers and the UK economy.”

Simon Jones, chief executive of the GCRE, added: “Agreeing this deal with Hitachi is a big moment for the Global Centre of Rail Excellence. To secure such an important and globally significant partner to undertake their testing and research on site clearly demonstrates the calibre and the quality of clients that we will be working with at our facility. What is particularly pleasing is the message that this sends to the whole industry about the credibility and attractiveness of the GCRE offer.”

RailStaff magazine

RailStaff has been championing the rail industry’s workforce since 1997.

As well as getting to the heart of ‘what you need to know’ each month, its team of writers focus on the latest developments in:

• Health

• Safety

• Wellbeing

• Careers and training

We also cover stories that celebrate the great achievements of staff.

Such is the freely-distributed magazine’s success that the only industry-wide people recognition scheme, the RailStaff Awards, was launched in 2007, and has been held ever since.

Request a free subscription at www.railsubs.com

Call 01530 816 444 or visit www.railstaff.co.uk for more information

IntelligentVEHICLES

AUTONOMOUS ROAD

& LEVEL CROSSINGS

Much has improved over the years to make road/rail level crossings safer, but collisions at level crossings are still a major cause of train incident risk. With level crossings being an open interface between the road and the railway there is increased potential for poor road user behaviour to affect train safety and place the level crossing user in danger. The risks, however, can be reduced by safe design and new engineering technology to prevent serious and fatal incidents. The latest initiative under development is using intelligent autonomous road vehicle technology to warn drivers and stop the vehicle safely on the approach to a closed level crossing.

There are approximately 6,000 level crossings in use on the mainline rail network in Britain and trains are now typically more frequent and travel at higher speeds than ever. At the same time more road traffic crosses the railway and road vehicles are becoming larger. The safest level crossing is a closed one. However, this is not easy and can be very difficult and expensive to achieve. Even if budget and resources can be made available to eliminate a level crossing and provide a bridge or underpass, there is often not the available space to construct a safer alternative to a level crossing. Level crossings connect society, communities, and businesses, and people very often want their crossing to

remain open, even when a case for closure on safety grounds can be made.

It only requires one person to object to a crossing closure for it to remain open, so where level crossing elimination is not possible the risks to users and the operational railway must be reduced so far as is reasonably practicable, and this is where new technology, such as intelligent autonomous road vehicles, could make a difference. This was the subject of a recent presentation to the IRSE by Hugh Rochford and Virgine Taillandier of SNCF.

They started by explaining that in France, despite extensive training and public awareness campaigns, more than 90% of level crossing

PAUL DARLINGTON

incidents are caused by road drivers’ hazardous behaviour. They went on to describe a future alternative to improve level crossing safety by using innovative road vehicle technology through connected and Automated Vehicles (AVs). Instead of bringing more complexity to the railway systems, the objective is to address poor road driver’s behaviours, thus improving overall safety at level crossings.

Vehicle driver behaviour

The behaviour of a road driver traversing a level crossing with a road vehicle consists of three phases: anticipation of the situation, adaptation of the speed to the risk, and a final decision before entering the level crossing. For each phase, the behaviour depends on many factors, including the understanding of the immediate environment by the driver and leading in some cases to hazardous decisions.

Road vehicles are benefiting from a fast rate of technological improvement. For example, emergency radio links, including the fitment of digital car radios, have been mandatory in the EU since 2018. This allows localised emergency messages to be broadcast in case of an incident. Emergency radio links open new application developments, such as improving safety when using a level crossing. The concept is to alert the vehicle driver or vehicle direct of the status of the level crossing in adequate time to avoid a hazard. This has also been developed by the UIC - International union of railways with the DIGital Impacts (DIGIM) business processes programme through the ‘Traffic Message Channel’ for drivers, using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) devices. DIGIM is a global crossfunctional programme aimed at using new digital technologies to improve railway safety, operations, security, and make better use of existing data.

Vehicle to Everything (V2X) is a road vehicle technology being introduced to equip connected road vehicles. This system will allow safe communication in real-time with the environment, sharing between vehicles (V2V), roadside infrastructure (V2I) as well as to pedestrians (V2P) and cyclists via wireless consumer devices (V2D). V2X systems can be based on Wi-Fi and/or cellular (LTE) technology.

Around 30% of new vehicles sold in the

EU, USA, China, and Japan are already provided with automated embedded functions known as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), which have been developed over the last decade. These ADAS systems consist of a list of assistive functions, such as adaptive cruise control, satellite navigation, active lane-keeping and centring, automated valet parking, traffic sign recognition and obstacle detection; up to the complete automation of driving and making the steering wheel optional. The vehicle is then categorised as an automated vehicle. It is expected that, by 2030, half of all road vehicles will be equipped worldwide with some ADAS functions. One of the ADAS functions is Traffic Sign Recognition, which enables a vehicle to recognise common road traffic signs and communicate the importance of the signs to the vehicle driver.

messages to approaching road vehicles. A level crossing RSU has already been tested by C-Roads partners – a European initiative to develop a range of intelligent transport systems projects, along with technical and functional guidelines for future communication systems between vehicles and infrastructure deployed across Europe.

Messages are sent by hybrid communications (Wi-Fi and public mobile radio) for display on the vehicle road user Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) system. These include: Danger! do not cross (in case of a level crossing out of service); Level crossing at xxx metres; Level crossing closed at xxx metres; Closed road; and Traffic restrictions in case of road limitations, e.g., limitation of speed, weight, height, width, or a specific ground profile (hump).

Promoting positive driving behaviour for level crossings

The concept is to simply connect the level crossing into an intelligent transport system, communicating directly with connected vehicles and to inform the driver and vehicle about the status of the level crossing ahead to allow them time to react appropriately. The objective is to improve level crossing safety without making extensive changes and the level crossing principle of operation would not be changed.

A control module would be fitted at the crossing, which monitors the status of the level crossing and a Road Side Unit (RSU) broadcasts level crossing

The integration of a cybersecurity layer in the ITS equipment allows the receiver to be assured that the sender is identified and trusted by adding a certificate of authenticity in accordance with ETSI standards. ETSI is the European standards organisation for telecoms.

Tests carried out in 2020 at Brec’h level crossing in France have validated the architecture including a security layer. Level crossing use cases are also being standardised and will be published in the next ETSI Standard TS 102 894 2

“Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Users and applications requirements; Part 2: Applications and facilities layer common data dictionary”.

Studies were carried out with a panel of 25 drivers. The study concluded that most of the drivers understood the messages and they wanted to be aware of the level of risk ahead.

However, the reaction could be split into two distinct categories. A majority of drivers anticipated the consequences by trusting the warning and taking appropriate measures (e.g., reducing speed even without seeing the danger), with a minority of drivers waiting for a conclusive and concurring warning to react (bell, red light, lowering barriers), and relying on their capacity to react quickly if needed.

The warning messages could be emphasised to the driver by an imperative ‘beep’ sound to

is relevant and will request the driver to drive manually if the vehicle onboard sensors are not able to guarantee safe control.

As the Level increases from 1 to 5, more human responsibility is transferred to the vehicle system and sensors are used to understand the environment. The sensors will consist of devices such as, digital maps, V2X connectivity, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, lidar, cameras, and telematics.

However, the high probability of a fatality in the case of a collision with a train currently discourages most vehicle manufacturers from including level crossings in the scope of their

increase his/her awareness. Even so, a quarter of the panel admitted that they would ‘zigzag’ through a malfunctioning level crossing despite the messages and the sounds! Other drivers said they would stop to think or make a U-turn to avoid the risk.

The study concluded that over 92% of drivers did react to the warning, enabling them to approach the level crossing safely by adapting their speed in good time and making sure enough time was left to react to the situation. Without the onboard warning system, only 30% of drivers took notice of the existing roadside warnings.

Automated Vehicles

Automated Vehicles (AV) are road vehicles equipped with sensors. The intention is that a computer will, in some situations, decide when to brake, when to accelerate, and when to steer, instead of the human driver. There are five levels of AV from Level 1 (road driver is assisted with functionality such as adaptive cruise control, keeping a safe distance with the vehicle in front, emergency brake assist, lane-keeping, lane-centring) through to Level 5 (a driver is not necessary; the vehicle is a ‘total’ Autonomous Vehicle).

AVs are therefore expected to react safely before a level crossing, which means the vehicle onboard system will control the vehicle if the risk

automated vehicles. It is just too risky for them. Therefore, SNCF have collaborated with vehicle supplier VALEO to address this with the HERMES project. HERMES aims to develop a closer and more effective communication between researchers working in the field of transport technologies in the EU, and their counterparts around the world, by exchanging information and developing long-term collaboration.

Most level crossing incidents are caused by voluntary or involuntary violation of traffic rules, human driving mistakes, or distractions, and it was identified that automated/ autonomous vehicles could play a positive role in addressing some of these causes.

Approaching a level crossing with an AV with interfaced brakes

In the case of an Automated Vehicle with interfaced brakes approaching a level crossing, the Automated Vehicle (Level 3 or 4) can cross the level crossing without any driver’s intervention, with ‘hands off’ the steering wheel and the vehicle starting and stopping itself automatically.

In 2021, at an automatic level crossing in Brittany (France) tests were carried out and met the expected performance in terms of functionality, security, and road safety. In the case of a message about an out of order level crossing, the vehicle did stop before the level crossing, or change its route.

The target scenarios could be fulfilled by the automated vehicle with the expected performance in terms of functionality and safety, and without hazardous behaviour. In particular, the assistance provided by the level crossing via the V2X communication link turned out to be especially useful.

Challenges

There are many issues and challenges to be addressed with AVs and level crossings. Each railway around the world has a different level crossing configurations (e.g., fixed or flashing red lights, traffic signs - red and white barriers in Great Britain/ France/ Germany, but yellow and red in Norway/Sweden) or their operating modes (various flashing frequency for the traffic lights, various closing time). Sensors and algorithms therefore may have to be adapted to accommodate all the different railway requirements and this will increase the costs and complexity of the AV systems. And who takes responsibility if a ‘connected’ level crossing is unable to prevent a collision with an AV and a train?

Cybersecurity is another issue and, with a machine taking over the human decision-making role, a complete safety analysis including ethics would be required to manage the risks to an acceptable level.

Would all rail infrastructure managers be able to support intelligent automated road vehicle operations? Depending on the country and railway, the interest of infrastructure/level crossing managers may differ (due to the cost/benefit ratio required). Would there be an economy of scale for the AV road vehicle manufacturer?

Would the AV manufacturer be willing to take on the risk to their business if something went wrong?

With the different legal frameworks that exist around the world, a way would have to be found for providing the right level of assistance to the AV manufacturer without causing an unacceptable transfer of responsibility to the infrastructure manager, while still providing the right support from the railways with an appropriate level of quality at an affordable cost for the AV manufacturer. AV manufacturers are unlikely to want to develop for all the different level crossing systems around the world.

Currently, it is believed there is no legal position on responsibility-sharing when using a connected level crossing to provide critical information to an AV. However, new vehicles will increasingly be monitored with mandatory recording systems (black box) as newly manufactured vehicles are now in Europe.

Most of the costs for intelligent autonomous road vehicles and level crossings are with the vehicle manufacturer, and developing algorithms and sensors is very expensive. Maintenance of the vehicle is usually the vehicle owner’s responsibility. The connected level crossing will need a transmission link to communicate with the vehicle, but who pays? Installation and maintenance costs will also have to be considered by the infrastructure manager for the required crossing equipment throughout the lifetime of the level crossing.

Benefits and future work

Hugh and Virgine explained that the first benefit of AVs and level crossings is societal by protecting human life. In France they estimate that for automated vehicles and level crossings, the return on investment could be an 80% to 90% reduction in level crossing incidents.

The Society of Automotive Engineers describes six levels of road driving automation, similar to the way railways describe the four train Grades of Automation (GoA).

» Level 0 – no automation.

» Level 1 – hands-on/ shared control. The road driver acts as in Level 0 and is assisted with some functionality (adaptive cruise control keeping a safe distance with the vehicle in front, or emergency brake assist, lane-keeping, lanecentring).

» Level 2 – hands off the wheel, but the road driver supervises the driving. This is as Level 0 and is assisted over multiple functionalities, leading to highway (lane keeping) assistance, automated obstacle avoidance, and automated parking.

» Level 3 – from this level the AV computer can drive the vehicle on the highway, but the road driver is asked to take over in any unknown environment situation.

» Level 4 – the AV can drive the vehicle most of the time and the road driver is asked to take control in very specific situations. The AV can also park the vehicle automatically.

» Level 5 – the driver is not necessary; the vehicle is a ‘total’ Autonomous Vehicle. A Level 5 AV can face all risks and decides without the supervision of a human.

Conclusion

The use of intelligent AVs to prevent level crossing incidents is an interesting one. There are those who may dismiss AVs and understandably will always want a driver to be in control of a road vehicle. However, there is already much of the

required technology and standards in place to protect level crossings using AVs, and many road vehicles are already equipped for AV Level 1 and Level 2. There are road vehicles which already alert drivers of road hazards ahead and automatically commence the braking of the vehicle. Concerns were raised when road vehicle safety was improved with the fitment of seatbelts and wearing them was subsequently made mandatory, but no one questions this now.

Railway level crossing safety has improved over the years with the adoption of new technology; such as the introduction of interlockings, approaching locking of gates using track circuits, LED

signage, CCTV, and obstacle detection. The investment in road vehicle technology is huge and developing fast, and the rail industry cannot afford to ignore the benefits of intelligent autonomous road vehicles and level crossings. There will be issues to be overcome, such as the legal responsibility when things go wrong and who pays for what, but many of the safety improvements mentioned have followed very serious incidents with loss of life and subsequent inquiry recommendations. We can only trust that the benefits of AVs and the prevention of level crossing incidents does not have to wait till another very serious incident and inquiry.

PAUL DARLINGTON

ANOTHER CANDIDATE FOR SAFER LEVEL CROSSINGS?

Great Britain’s level crossings are among the safest in Europe, but they still pose a significant safety risk to the public. This means it is a priority for everyone involved in rail to reduce and manage the safety risk and the Office for Rail and Road’s (ORR) strategy for health and safety regulation of level crossings includes encouraging research, innovation, and new technologies to improve risk control. The ORR published its signalling market study in November 2021 and one action was for Network Rail to widen its the pool of suppliers. This was to reduce Network Rail’s long-term dependence on its incumbent suppliers, to increase competition, and to lower whole life costs.

Rail Engineer recently met with IHI Corporation to learn of its Obstacle Detection (OD) technology. IHI’s OD technology is very well established and used extensively on level crossings in Japan and throughout the world, and it could be a new solution to help operate level crossings in Britain safely and more efficiently.

Level crossing safety

There are just under 5,800 level crossings on the mainline rail network in Britain with another estimated 1,500 on heritage and minor railways. Crossing incidents in the country are well below the European average, but this could change with just one major incident,

and every incident has the potential for significant human and economic loss.

Many level crossings connect communities and people in those communities often want their crossings to remain open, even when a case for closure on railway safety grounds can be made. Trains are generally more frequent, quieter, and travel at higher speeds than ever. There is more road traffic using crossings and bigger farm machinery with better soundproofing for drivers. People are living at a faster pace and more pedestrians are using personal devices which can easily distract them.

OD crossings in Britain are now well established and are essential for ‘road’ crossings in areas with the large Route Operating Centres being rolled out around the country, as signallers can’t monitor every level crossing to ensure they are clear before setting a train route over a crossing. Even if remote crossing surveillance can be established, there is always the risk that an operator may miss someone trapped inside the closed barriers when deciding the ‘crossing clear’ status and allowing the train to proceed over a crossing. Unlike a ‘Mark 1 human’ an obstacle detector, if designed and maintained correctly, does not get tired, bored, or mistaken when doing the same regular routine task.

An OD system in Britain needs to: provide a safety integrity no worse and ideally better than a manually operated crossing; cause no or minimal delays to trains due to equipment failure or false detections; be affordable - in terms of whole life costs; operate in all weather and temperatures; and be practical to use and maintain. It must also be able to confirm that a crossing is not occupied by a person (including small

The detection system will be exposed to electrical interference from traction and power systems, together with dust and dirt from passing trains, and it must not interfere with any train signalling, communications system, or rolling stock, and needs to comply with all relevant electromagnetic compatibility regulations.

Various technologies have been evaluated for level crossing obstacle detection and radar has been found to be the best. The radar detector transmits radio waves over an area and monitors for any echoes. If an echo is received, this indicates that a wave has hit a surface of an object and has been reflected back. By analysing the echo, the distance, position, and speed of an object can be determined.

engineering requirements and rigorous standards. IHI is also no stranger to OD level crossings and has supplied approximately 3,000 OD level crossing systems around the world. These have been certified and approved by a number of infrastructure managers, including SIL 3

certification and SIL 4 in the case of Italian market. Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 4 is the highest SIL and not easy to achieve.

The International Electrotechnical Commission’s (IEC) Standard IEC 61508 defines SIL using both safety integrity and systematic safety integrity requirements. A system must meet the stringent target requirements for both, to achieve a given SIL, and the requirements are based on a probabilistic analysis of the device. The system must also

meet the maximum probability of dangerous failure, which is also rigorously defined.

Cross certification of the IHI OD technology is therefore available from other railway infrastructure managers where appropriate and IHI does not see any problem in meeting Great Britain’s stringent standards for OD crossings.

The company’s history goes back to the establishment of Ishikawajima Shipyard, Japan’s first modern shipbuilding facility. The company played a key role in Japan’s modernisation, including the transfer of its extensive shipbuilding technology into new areas, such as heavy machinery manufacturing, bridge building, plant construction, and aeroengine production.

In 1960, Ishikawajima Heavy Industries, the successor of Ishikawajima Shipyard, merged with Harima Shipbuilding & Engineering to create Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries. The name IHI Corporation was adopted in 2007 to help strengthen the company’s global brand. The company has also been successfully supplying its products to England in other safety critical industries for over 60 years and has people based in England.

IHI says it is deeply committed to contributing to society through technology, combining diverse engineering capabilities to meet expanding global

needs for energy, urbanisation and industrialisation, and transportation efficiency.

3D laser device

The IHI OD level crossing system uses 3D laser principles. A 3D laser emits a laser pulse to an object, and measures the time that it takes for reflected laser to return to the radar (timeof-flight method) to determine the distance to the object. The laser pulse is emitted in a way that scans the entire area of a level crossing in both horizontal and vertical directions, and derives a 3D coordinate.

Just a single laser device is used to cover the whole area of a crossing. The values of each point scanned are measured, based on the reflected laser returning to the 3D laser. The coordinates higher than the crossing surface are extracted, and points in close proximity to each other are recognised as ‘one group of points’. Data on these points are processed to calculate the positions and sizes of objects and, by repeatedly executing the measurement process and performing related signal processing tasks, the IHI system is able to recognise objects precisely. Furthermore, the speeds and moving directions of objects are calculated based on the amount of change in their positions.

The laser head processes the laser pulses through polygon and swing mirrors to make the laser pulse scan the entire area

of a crossing. The hardware that executes the detection processing is duplicated and detection is performed by two sets of hardware. The result performed by one set of hardware is collated with the other set of hardware, in order to prevent a detection error or false reporting.

The first IHI OD level crossing system unit was installed December 2005 at the Nanbuline Eidanmae level crossing, between Inadazutumi and Yanokuchi station, of the East Japan Railway Company. The IHI OD system has since been extensively adopted throughout the world, with approximately 3,000 systems now in use and providing safe, reliable level crossing obstacle detection. In Italy, IHI is in partnership with Eredi Giuseppe Mercuri (EGM), with the system receiving type approval from an Italian client. In Germany, IHI is in partnership with DB Bahnbau Gruppe to provide OD level crossing

technology and has received type approval from the German Federal Railways Authority. The system will need formal approval for use in Britain, but IHI is confident that its certified 3D laser OD system can meet the required OD safety requirements, and that it could

LEVEL CROSSING SYSTEMS

tolerates vertical track position changes adaptive system for high loads

help make level crossings in Britain both safe and efficient for everyone.

More information on the IHI OD system can be obtained by contacting: Tel: 079 2322 4032 or Email: wedge5463@ihi-g.com

stable support easy exchange > replace STRAIL outer panels with pontiSTRAIL 713

Decarbonising

TRANSPORT WEEK

Whilst the UK has reduced its carbon emissions by 48% since 1990, transport emissions had decreased by only 15% over this period. The problem of reducing transport carbon was considered during the Decarbonising Transport Week (DTW) between 6 and 10 March, organised by Binary Carbon. The DTW website offered webinars, policy statements, and reports which are still available on demand.

The fundamental problem with decarbonising transport is that vehicles have to carry their own fuel which is not too much of a problem as petroleum has a particularly high energy density. This is not the case for the only practical net-zero alternatives of batteries and hydrogen which require far more storage space than a petrol or diesel fuel tank. For the same amount of energy, the weight of a battery is around 50 times that of a diesel tank. This is a particular problem for highpowered vehicles such as HGVs and planes.

Decarbonisation highlights the importance of energy efficient transport. Railways are a particularly efficient form of transport as the rolling resistance of a steel wheel

on a steel rail is a tenth that of a rubber tyre on a road. In contrast, planes require an enormous amount of energy to accelerate to 900 km/h and lift them eight kilometres into the air. A loaded Airbus A321 weighing about 50 tonnes burns about 5 tonnes of fuel between London and Glasgow. A battery having the same energy of this fuel would weigh 150 tonnes. Much is said about the importance of innovation if netzero carbon transport is to be achieved. Yet innovation cannot change these basic laws of physics. There will no doubt be improvements in battery energy density though these are unlikely to be dramatic. The Advanced Propulsion Centre predicts an increase in battery energy density of about 30% by 2035.

‘Sustainable’ fuels

One proposed solution is the use of sustainable fuels which, despite their name, are generally not sustainable. A report on the DTW website ‘Speeding up the switch to sustainable aviation fuel’ identifies four types of such fuels:

» Crop-based biofuels –these could displace food production or lead to deforestation.

» Biogenic waste fuels –produced from waste products such as used cooking oil or agricultural residues, of which there is a limited availability.

» Recycled carbon fuels –produced from unavoidable fossil fuel waste and so are linked to fossil fuel production.

» Power-to-liquid fuels (PtL) – a synthetic fuel derived from green hydrogen and CO2 from direct air capture (DAC). This could be produced at scale dependant on the availability of renewable energy and hydrogen.

DAVID SHIRRES

Passengers on this electric train between London and Glasgow have a much lower carbon impact than those travelling by road or air.

Thus, sustainable fuels should only be considered as a transitional solution. PfL is the only one that could be truly sustainable although it is likely to be more expensive than petroleum. It also needs a rapid scaling up of the new industries required to produce it, such as green hydrogen and DAC.

Road, sea, and air

The DTW’s Net Zero Roads webinar highlighted the National Highways plan for net zero highways. By 2030 this commits to net zero for corporate emissions and replacing 70% of road lighting with LEDs by 2027. There are also plans to ensure that maintenance and construction activities are net zero by 2040 and to support Government plans for net zero road user emissions by 2050.

The Government report ‘Taking Charge: the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy’ shows that there are currently around 30,000 public EV chargepoints. By 2030, it is expected that, as a minimum, there will be around 300,000. Energy regulator Ofgem is required to support the required investment in the electricity network for these chargers. This is to be a Government-provided £950 million Rapid Charging Fund for the installation of

yet to be determined. Hence, trials are being funded which are considering electric road systems, hydrogen, and battery powered HGVs. The DfT is also considering increasing the maximum HGV weight to allow for extra weight of batteries and/or hydrogen tanks.

Possible maritime decarbonisation solutions were shown by the UK Government’s Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition. These included direct Ammonia fuel cells as Ammonia is a practical way of storing Hydrogen onboard ships, as well as the SKYTUG concept which could tow large ships across oceans at normal service speeds, using only a fraction of their usual fuel consumption, without the need to modify existing vessels.

Research into net zero liquidHydrogen-fuelled planes was described by Dr Peter Clough of Cranfield University who noted that sustainable aviation fuels were not a long-term solution. He described how ZeroAvia is developing a 9-to19-seat hydrogen-powered plane with a range of 500km that could be operational by 2025. He also referred to the 12 specific research strands of the ENABLEH2 project which showed how hydrogen planes could eventually carry 200 passengers over 8,000 km.

Rail’s net zero contribution

Rail sector webinars were run by the Railway Industry Association (RIA), HS2, and the Rail Freight Group (RFG), whilst the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) offered an opinion piece. Perhaps not surprisingly these all promoted a modal shift to rail whereas other webinars promoted decarbonisation solutions for sectors with emissions that are hard to abate.

RDG was critical of the Government’s halving of Air Passenger Duty on domestic flights which, it estimates, could result in 222,000 fewer train journeys and over 1,000 extra flights, generating 27,000 additional tonnes of carbon emissions.

The RFG webinar also looked beyond the rail sector by considering the need for a circular economy to reduce

the environmental impact of economic activity though re-use, recovery, and renewal. Carl Waring of the Frazer Nash consultancy referred to the Institute of Asset Management’s report on how asset management can enable the circular economy. He noted that the long life of rail’s assets and vehicles made it an even more carbon efficient sector and also considered that current investment criteria do not recognise the value of rail investment.

A particular example of rail supporting a circular economy was given by Victoria Crabtree of SUEZ waste management services. Its rail-connected facility on Merseyside despatches two trains a day, each of which has 66 containers carrying 900 tonnes of waste. This represents 21,000 HGV journeys saved each year. These trains go to the company’s Teeside Energy-from-Waste facility which produces 30MW of electricity per year.

SUEZ also has a Renew Hub in Manchester which is a warehouse, repair, and repurpose centre. Last year, this diverted more than 100,000 items for re-use through three resale shops and internet sales as described in its guide on integrating repair into a household recycling centre network.

GB Railfreight’s head of sustainability, Suzannah Rocket, also considered the carbon benefits of long-life assets. One such example was the conversion of coal hopper wagons to carry aggregate. With coal being a less dense material, this was done by removing a coal hopper bay to shorten the wagon from 17.8 metres to 14.3 metres whilst keeping the gross weight the same at 102 tonnes. A more

ambitious conversion was the creation of the Class 69 locomotive from the bodyshell of a Class 56, with the engine and traction equipment from a Class 66.

Building better

Both the HS2 and RIA webinars showed how building a better railway gave the added benefit of decarbonisation. When the full HS2 network is eventually built it will free up significant capacity on the West Coast Main Line for freight and local passenger services. It will increase the hourly rail seats per hour between Birmingham and Manchester from 450 to 1,500 and those between Manchester and London from 1,800 to 3,900. International experience indicates that HS2 will result in 770,000 fewer air trips and 1.8 million passenger journeys per year.

The provision of an attractive customer experience was stressed. As well as shorter journey times. This will attract people from cars and planes as has happened whenever high-speed lines are built. From the start, HS2’s trains will be powered by zero-carbon electricity. To achieve this, HS2 is mindful of the lead times needed for additional generating capacity as it is pointless just taking zero-carbon electricity from somewhere else.

HS2’s carbon manager, Mark Fenton, explained that construction emissions are 73% of whole life carbon cost. To reduce these, HS2 has achieved accreditation to the global PAS 2080 standard for its whole-life carbon management system. This includes the application of circular economy principles and the requirement

to minimise resource consumption and use low carbon alternatives wherever possible.

For example, designers have achieved a 27% reduction in the structural steel required to build the roof of Old Oak Common station and HS2 intends for all of its sites to be diesel free by 2029. Carbon is also being saved from better construction logistics. A 3km network of conveyors at the Willesden logistics hub will move five million tonnes of spoil to save the need for a million lorry movements.

RIA’s webinar was also part of its RailDecarb23 campaign, which was launched during Decarbonising Transport Week. Its technical director, David Clarke, noted that although the DfT’s plan to decarbonise transport included a commitment to deliver an ambitious programme of electrification, there was a clear gap between policy and delivery. As a result, it was looking increasingly unlikely that the rail network would be decarbonised by the legally binding 2050 target.

He advised that RailDecarb23 had three asks: i) immediate implementation of an electrification programme on intensively used lines; ii) ramp up orders for hydrogen and battery trains; and iii) ensure suppliers are not penalised for offering low carbon solutions.

Doing something now

Helen McAllister, who led the production of Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy, advised that she was a big fan of doing something that can be done now, and that decarbonising rail is definitely in this category. She felt that we can’t rely on some technology that might magically appear in 2040. Hence, the large-scale electrification plan needed to decarbonise rail cannot be left until a few years before 2050. She advised that big infrastructure programmes don’t work like that, they need a long-term plan.

She was concerned that decarbonising rail might not be seen as important as it was already an efficient form of transport, accounting for only 2% of transport emissions. This view ignores the huge contribution that rail can make by abstracting freight and passenger traffic from roads and air which should be part of an overall UK strategy to get to net zero. For example, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport estimates that freight traffic equivalent to 30% of HGV kilometres could be transferred to rail.

Noel Dolphin, head of UK projects for Furrer+Frey, explained why electric railways offer better performance, lower operating costs, better reliability, as well as decarbonisation. Hence it is a mistake to consider rail electrification solely as a decarbonisation solution. Aspects of his presentation are included in a short paper ‘Rail Electrification: The Facts’ that RIA recently published on its website.

Rail’s easy solution

The recordings of the webinars and reports on the DTW website provide an interesting insight into the challenges of decarbonising transport which can only happen if it can be weaned off petroleum. For roads, water, and air transport this is a difficult problem, especially for highpowered transport for which there are currently no proven solutions.

While it has been proposed that the sale of diesel HGVs will end by 2040, a suitable net-zero alternative has yet to be defined. Whatever it is will need a substantial infrastructure investment. For aviation, expensive sustainable aviation fuel is a short-term solution and liquid-hydrogen-powered planes are seemingly the only long-term solution. This would reduce a plane’s passenger carrying capacity and require the world’s airports to be provided liquid hydrogen storage and fuelling infrastructure.

Yet the reality of these problems is denied by Government statements such as “Guilt-free flying is within our reach, and we are backing the world-leading UK firms whose skills and ingenuity are going to make that dream a reality.”

In contrast, rail offers the proven decarbonisation solution of rail electrification that also reduces cost and improves performance. Whilst it comes with a high initial cost, on an intensively used railway it offers a lower whole life cost. More powerful electric trains also offer greater network capacity and thus support the required modal shift from road and air.

For all these reasons, Decarbonising Transport Week showed that a rolling programme of rail electrification is needed now.

Further to presentations given to PWI Section meetings at Cheshire & North Wales plus Manchester & Liverpool, this article has been prepared to share an interesting project delivered in 2021.

The Dovey Junction to Pwllheli railway crosses the River Glaslyn over Traeth Mawr just outside Porthmadog. The structure was built before the opening of the railway in 1867 and was originally 40-plus spans but was significantly altered over the years to its present day 16 spans.

Amco Giffen was contracted by Network Rail Investment Projects Wales & Western to deliver significant refurbishment works in 2021. This presented significant logistical challenges for Amco, working over the tidal Afon Glaslyn in a multitude of nature habitats and SSSIs. During three blockades of the railway, Amco worked in, out, and over the water to replace structural elements of the bridge.

Although Traeth Mawr is Barmouth Viaducts’ little sister, this in no way made it easier to deliver. In fact, due to the river Glaslyn flood plain being artificially altered when Porthmadog Cob was

Timber Trestle Railway Viaduct Refurbishment

built, what was previously a normal estuary is now a complex area subject to flooding and tidal influences.

Hampered by high winds and flood conditions, (not to mention COVID-19 lock down), this article offers insights to the challenges of working on an iconic timber trestle structure.

Background and history

Traeth Mawr timber trestle railway viaduct was originally built by the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway, and the section opened to Pwllheli in 1867. Benjamin Piercy and Henry Conybeare were the engineers who also designed Barmouth and the other timber viaducts on the route – Thomas Savin from Oswestry was the contractor which built the viaducts.

Over the years, the structure has been rebuilt and modified and a range of timbers have been used including soft woods such as Pitch Pine, Douglas Fir, and more recently hardwoods like Ekki and Greenheart (a timber grown almost exclusively in South America and Guyana). Most recently, the structure has had several interventions including replacement of major structural elements.

The structure was 40-plus spans originally and then rebuilt around 1914 to 21 spans, with the embankments/abutments brought forward

CARL BAKER

and spans reduced and then modified again to its current 16 spans. The structure was rebuilt by installing intermediate trestles at mid-span and the original piles are still on site and in remarkable condition.

The numbers of spans were reduced by extending the rock and earth fill embankment from low mileage to high. Concrete abutments were also installed at the time it was reduced to 16 spans.

The railway crosses the River Glaslyn Estuary and the Traeth Mawr flood plain that has been altered by the construction of the Porthmadog Cob. The Porthmadog Cob was built by William Maddocks in 1808-1811 to reclaim Traeth Mawr, (later also used as a road and the Ffestiniog Railway), and this construction caused a natural harbour to be scoured out but required the building of further flood defences around Porthmadog town including embankments and a tidal flood gate on the river’s entry to the harbour. This flood gate and the flood plain are the most significant factor in the difficulties the project faced.

Project scope

» Replacement of timber structural members –piles, cross head, corbels, and edge beams.

» Replacement of associated metallic fixings –bolts and straps.

» Replacement of all handrails along edge beam in the cess.

» Packing/resin of timber joints.

» No Track Work apart from jacking the bridge deck and waybeams to access members for replacement.

Design

The structure is owned and maintained by Network Rail who contract out detailed inspections and design services to Cass Hayward.

Network Rail in Mid-Wales has nine underline bridges which were constructed in timber over rivers and estuaries on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli Coast routes. The largest bridge is Barmouth Viaduct with 113 spans; those at the other sites vary in length between three and 16 spans with both Traeth Mawr and River Artro Viaducts having 16

Before the works, downstream face and deck from high mileage.

spans. The spans are generally similar in length at about six metres and their construction is also of similar form, but has variations in the assembly of the timber baulks.

The structure has 16 spans and 15 trestles which are numbered from low mileage with the Down Side on the Seaward face and the Up Side on the Upstream face. Describing the timber trestles from the bottom up there are five piles per trestle that are embedded in the riverbed. The piles have a lapped splice at lower lever and then extend up to the cross head. The piles are braced by horizontal lower and upper wailings and also diagonal cross braces.

Trestles 7 to 11 in the deeper sections of river have out-riggers and lower wailings for extra stability which connect to additional piles outside of the structure. Each trestle has a cross head which supports the corbels and edge beams on the outside and the main span beams under the waybeams and track. The timbers’ joints are secured together with through bolts and metal straps. On top of the upper edgebeam is a kicker board and a handrail for access to the cess on both sides.

Some of the structures’ timbers were in varying states of decay and the metal straps had severe corrosion as one would expect in a marine estuary environment. Timber decay usually propagates in joint areas particularly just above the water line. The new pile splices were moved to lower positions, either in the riverbed or below water level as this prolongs their life, being subject to one condition rather than wet and dry.

Cass Hayward Consultants had surveyed the structure and produced a list of members for renewal. It also produced a Form A civils proposal and, under Amco’s direction, produced the Form B including temporary works from which timber members could be ordered and the scheme delivered.

The structure was surveyed using pointcloud scanning techniques and a wireframe 3D model extracted from the pointcloud.

From the wireframe 3D model, plans, elevations, cross-sections, and details can be easily produced for drawing production. The drawing set included whole elevations for the bridge and details of each trestle and specifics of metal work straps, joints, and handrails. From these drawings materials could be ordered and work activities planned to include construction sequence animations.

Timber specification

The main structural timbers were specified as Greenheart. Greenheart is a D70 grade timber chosen for its Rot Resistance. Greenheart is rated as a very durable material and is also resistant to most insect attacks. It is also considered to be one of the best-suited woods for use in marine environments and has excellent weathering characteristics.

Workability on site is somewhat difficult on account of its density and interlocking grain, with a moderate to high blunting effect on cutters. It was not uncommon to see sparks flying from the blades of the chainsaws as the members were fashioned on site.

Greenheart density is around 1,010 kg/m3, so some members weighed up to three tonnes. The timber members were shipped in from Guyana during lockdown conditions in early 2021. Steelwork straps and through bolts were replaced with stainless steel.

The existing timber post and metal handrail was completely replaced with an Eziclamp Fibre Reinforced Plastic system. The posts and handrail were bolted to the edgebeams and were lightweight, robust, and aesthetically pleasing.

Other design and construction requirements

Temporary works were required for jacking the deck of the structure to allow members to be replaced. A Mabey jacking system was designed that braced and jacked off the lower wailings through a system of tied props and beams up to

Routeview of site.

Schedule of Element Replacement.

the soffit of the deck. All bridge members that were employed in this had to be hardwood as softwood was not deemed competent enough. Exclusion zones were also set out so that RRVs would not compromise structural integrity whilst certain members were removed.

Track levels were surveyed in advance of the jacking, monitored during works, and a track handback engineer was on site to sign the track back into use. Track monitoring was implemented by way of retro-reflective targets attached to the track read by a total station every 24 hours after the work.

Access and environment

The following constraints and site challenges made what was essentially a simple like-for-like member replacement scheme incredibly complex.

» River Glaslyn Estuary Environment - flood plain & tidal waters.

» Sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), national nature reserves, and conservation areas.

» Working at height around a complex structure.

» Working over, on, and underwater.

» 150mm gas main had to be removed from structure before works commenced.

Fortunately, existing access roads are at either side of the river and structure, from Minffordd on the low mileage and Porthmadog on the high mileage sides – this also included track access points. Unfortunately, the access road to the high mileage was under water for a lot of the time, and the access from the low mileage was under water for some of the time.

Access to the structure from the water was enabled with the use of scaffold on pontoons, barge platforms and boats and the extensive use of divers.

Access from the railway was by two Road Rail Vehicle 30t Giga Cranes with lifting beams, with material loaded on trailers from Minffordd quarry access.

The site compound welfare facilities and storage were positioned 450 metres East to the Minffordd end of the structure, as a SSSI wood and wetland prevented locating it any closer.

Stakeholder liaison was undertaken in advance of the works with various councils and statutory bodies and permits sought – in particular a Flood Risk Assessment Permit (FRAP) to allow works in the river to commence.

Flooding

With many activities requiring staff to be partially or fully submerged in the water of the river, a greater understanding of the tidal environment was required to safely plan the works.

The tidal range and the flow rates expected vary greatly depending on weather conditions and tidal cycles. Traeth Mawr is a flood plain that was created on building of the Porthmadog Cob and the tidal gate which was further added to protect the harbour and town. The tidal gate is operated by hydrostatic pressure and, as the tide drops, the river water is allowed to flow out at a controlled rate. This however creates a significant tidal range of water height at the viaduct and varying flow rates which get more severe as rain increases.

The river Glaslyn source is on Mount Snowdon and the significant catchment area covers many other mountains and tributaries in the Snowdonia range. To predict the water heights and flow rates, a local consultant was engaged to produce a model and assess the inputs and restrictions that influence the site predicting flood returns of 25-, 50-, and 100-year cycles. A tidal range of approximately 3 metres and maximum average flow rates of 1 metre/s were predicted. Divers can safely work in 2 metres/s and were equipped with flow rate meters. The reality was that flow rates varied over the cross section of the river channel and did exceed the predictions, so work was suspended during these events which were further exacerbated by high winds.

Two teams of divers were employed to work in and under water, 24 hours a day, in shifts. Diving equipment tanks and lines were stored on pontoons and the barge. Divers wearing drysuits and breathing apparatus including helmets were only allowed to work two hours underwater at any time and then would return to the surface to recuperate for two hours. The temperature of the water was around 50C, so divers would get

Floating pontoons used for access.

RRV delivering materials and edgebeams.

cold quickly even with warm air being pumped into the suits. Divers used specialist underwater tools for cutting and drilling wood and metal. Severe weather conditions events were experienced during the first blockage, and work had to be suspended several times, mainly due to flooding affecting access roads and high winds making it unsafe on the water. High water levels made it difficult to access the structure as navigating below and around it became impossible. Additional diving resource was mobilised to site, but many activities had to be re-planned for follow up blockades.

Construction

Delivery Programme - 24hr Working during Railway Blockade:

» All works originally planned to be completed in February 2021 in a nine-day blockade.

The reality was that another two blockades were required:

» March 2021 - five-day blockade.

» September 2021 - five-day blockade whilst Barmouth works are on – all works complete and handed back to Network Rail.

During the February blockade, work shifts were cancelled several times due to extreme weather events and flooding. The programme of structure element replacement lost all its activity float, and items had to be delayed for later installation. On-site designers had to establish essential and critical works and what items could be delayed. Commissioning the structure and signing back into use at the end of the blockade was challenging as time ran out. Real-time assessments of what work was complete and what work was immediately outstanding and their dependant criticality had to be hastily arranged as the end of the blockade loomed.

Conclusion

The same question asked at both PWI Section presentations was “Why was the scheme delivered in February, when one can expect extreme weather conditions?”. The main driver was that train service patronage would be lower, so inconvenience caused by the blockade would be less disruptive to the travelling public. However, the risk of construction activities being severely delayed and the knock-on effect for delivery of the scheme caused by flooding and high winds could have been factored in a manner which offered greater flexibility and accounted for in the planning with additional programme float. Flood modelling should have been carried out much earlier on when planning the scheme, as access to the structure and construction activities were wholly dependent on this. It should not be underestimated what it is like working on or under the water in the hours of darkness, during lockdown, and in the wind and rain. Amco Giffen and the Network Rail team showed excellent determination, agility, and tenacity by delivering this scheme in difficult conditions.

Partially submerged diver replacing pile/splice.

Nearing completion and handback to Network Rail.

innovative green tunnels HS2’s

Eiffage Kier Ferrovial Bam joint venture (EKFB) is delivering civil engineering works across an 80km section of HS2, between the Chiltern Tunnel and Long Itchington Wood. In June last year, EKFB and its French engineering specialist, Matière, began the construction of an innovative 2.5km-long green tunnel at Chipping Warden in Northamptonshire.

Over half of the route between London and the West Midlands will be in tunnels or cuttings, helping to reduce negative impacts on the environment and local communities. Some of the deeper tunnels under construction are using Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). Others will be green tunnels, which are rare in the UK. These are cut-and-cover structures, backfilled above with restored or enhanced vegetation. They shield the local environment and neighbours from the noise and visual impacts of passing rail traffic.

On the first phase of HS2, there will be five green tunnels between London and West Midlands. Three are being built by EKFB, at Wendover in Buckinghamshire (1,185 metres long), Chipping Warden (2,500 metres) and Greatworth (2,500 metres) both in Northamptonshire. Two more green tunnels will also be built, to different designs, at Copthall in Hillingdon by Skanska Costain STRABAG (SCS JV), and at Burton Green in the West Midlands by Balfour Beatty and Vinci (BBV).

The construction of the TBM-bored Chiltern Tunnel was described in Rail Engineer issue 192 (Sept/Oct 2021).

Alasdair Hassan, HS2’s head of engineering and environment, briefed Rail Engineer on the design and construction method of the EKFB tunnels.

Design

The design of the tunnel by the Arcadis, SETEC, and COWI joint venture, is inspired by similar structures on France’s new high-speed lines. Eiffage constructed a very similar structure on the LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire highspeed project in France.

It features an m-shaped double arch, separating northbound and southbound trains into their own 8.4-metre-high tubes.

BOB WRIGHT

Each 20.4-metre-wide, m-shaped double arch consists of five pre-cast elements: a central pier, two walls, and two roof slabs, each just 350mm in thickness.

HS2 aims to reduce the carbon impacts of its construction. Concrete and steel are some of the biggest sources of carbon emissions and EKFB’s lighter-weight modular approach will more than halve the embedded carbon in these structures. The other significant benefit of the offsite precast approach is that far fewer people are required on site. This too has carbon reduction advantages and reduces impacts on the environment and disruption to neighbours in these relatively rural construction sites. Labour is instead located in the precasting works, in a controlled environment with quality and production benefits.

Designed for 120 years to first major maintenance, the tunnel segments are of standard design throughout all three tunnels, designed for the maximum depth of fill. The varying depth of cover reflects local topography. The deepest section, at Chipping Warden, has 18 metres of backfill above the tunnel, whilst a section of tunnel at Wendover will be partly above ground with only one metre of protective backfill. Fire door openings in the

centre wall will be provided every 300 metres for train evacuation in the event of an in-tunnel emergency. In common with the TBM tunnels, these will have 100-metre-long, progressively porous portals that will reduce noise nuisance by releasing the pressure waves that build up through the tunnel as trains pass at 360km/h.

HS2 Ltd’s Project Client, Rohan Perin, said:“The off-site manufacturing techniques being used will help cut the overall amount of carbon-intensive concrete and steel in the tunnel and make the whole process faster, more efficient and therefore less disruptive for the community.”

Manufacture

EKFB appointed Stanton Precast Ltd to manufacture all of the segments required for the three green tunnels. They have invested heavily in a major expansion of their factory at Ilkeston, in Derbyshire with a new production shed, casting, and storage areas. Their investment has created up to 100 local long-term jobs. In total, Stanton Precast will produce more than 13,290 tunnel segments, weighing between 19 and 44 tonnes. These high-quality finish units are being cast on their sides within steel formwork, using factory batched concrete.

As the installation on site is rapid, the production of the units began in advance of EKFB’s site start, allowing for a maximum stock of over 1,000 units to be established during the peak construction of all three tunnels. The factory’s production rates have increased consistently, more than keeping pace with the construction team’s requirements. Units are delivered by road, with lorries carrying a single centre wall, or two wall/roof sections. All three sites are close to motorways and A-roads, minimising nuisance to neighbours and normal road traffic. At Chipping Warden, a

new 1km section of the A361 was built to bypass the village to reduce traffic impact on the local community.

Initially, units were to be transported on their sides, but this would have resulted in wide, escorted loads. They are instead being transported upright, supported in cradles.

Construction

The programme for the completion of Chipping Warden tunnel is Summer 2025, with Greatworth following in Autumn 2025, and Wendover in Winter 2026. At the peak of construction next year, all three tunnels will be under construction at the same time.

Each will be constructed in the same sequence, progressing from the furthest end and working back towards the site access. First, a 65-metrewide cutting is excavated through the Oxford Clay, with the arisings stockpiled close by for reuse as backfill, or in noise bunds. This is followed by a 300mm reinforced concrete base slab cast on the formation, supplied by the onsite batching plant.

The erection of the tunnel begins with the placement, by a 160-tonne crawler crane, of the centre wall on a sand bed on the base slab. One of these sidewalls is erected followed by the roof slab, the connections between the three units are pin joints with a nib on the edges of the roof section and sockets in the wall sections. These remain as dry joints providing limited flexibility until locked into place by the invert slab. The opposite side of the tunnel is then installed too. Once 50 metres of tunnel has been erected, a 500mm thick reinforced concrete invert slab is cast. This bonds to the wall’s starter bars, joins all three wall sections, and provides continuity between the 10nr rings in the 25 metre section. One hundred metres of construction is being achieved every month, nearly twice as fast as conventional construction would have taken.

The tunnel is then waterproofed using a double layer, compartmentalised membrane system, placed using a bespoke gantry system. A central drain in the valley above the centre wall runs along the length of the tunnel, discharging at each end.

Backfilling to each side and above the tunnel is carried out to a tightly controlled sequence, including a ‘permit to backfill’ process. This avoids possible unequal loading which could deform or damage the structure. Backfill material is placed and compacted in 250mm layers using selected arisings from the tunnel excavation or from nearby. Topsoil is returned, using location specific arisings.

The construction site currently has all stages of construction in progress simultaneously along the length of the tunnel - base slab, precast erection, invert slab, waterproofing, and backfilling.

Planting

The locations of these tunnels are typically within agricultural land, and so the landscaping plans for each include the reinstatement of hedgerows or trees, and the re-seeding of meadows and verges. New woodland areas will be created above the portals, using trees and shrubs typical to the local area, such as Silver Birch, Oak, Beech, and Willow.

Minding the Gap

AUTOMATING INFRASTRUCTURE MONITORING WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Keeping our railway safe depends on reliable, up-todate data about the assets adjacent to it. Network Rail must survey track-side assets to gather this data – but traditional methods are labour-intensive, expensive, and difficult. That’s why Network Rail enlisted Atkins to develop a solution: a platform capable of automating the output of surveys harnessing cloud point data to help it meet its regulatory duties and ensure that the tracks are safewithout the strain.

It’s a big responsibility, maintaining over 10,000km of railway track. The challenges, duties, and possibilities are as lengthy as the rail itself. Providing a safe experience –not just for passengers, but for all stakeholders – is a complex, never-ending process. One that requires continuous innovation and rigorous oversight.

One of the key elements of safety is rail infrastructure gauging. This ensures that vehicles can travel along a route whilst remaining a safe distance from lineside structures such as platforms, tunnels, bridges, signposts, and so on. In Britain, clearance distances are typically tight, which means that vehicles must be assessed to each of their routes, while trackside infrastructure must be continuously monitored and maintained. To this end, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) requires Network Rail to maintain a list of assets proximate to the railway, including a detailed ‘gauging profile’ recording their measured outline relative to the track. These gauging profiles are used to predict clearances between the infrastructure and rolling stock, avoiding unsafe operation.

As the railway has grown, so too has the number of assets in its vicinity which need to be catalogued. Complicating matters further, track positions drift over time due to the

forces imparted by rail traffic, so surveys must be periodically repeated to ensure their continued validity.

Technology has helped – laser scanners are in continuous use to generate gauging measurement data – but all the data has to be processed before entering the national gauging database. Currently this requires skilled technicians to select and categorise the measurement data, including determining the structure type: be it a bridge, platform, tunnel, and so on. It’s a major bottleneck for Network Rail, with long lead times before the data is available. As a result, data may be out of date when it is needed by engineers, necessitating urgent catchup surveys which impact project costs and timescales. Identifying and processing the assets is time-consuming, laborious work, and, with skilled staff in short supply, Network Rail is under constant pressure to keep up with infrastructure gauging and ORR’s regulatory requirements.

Automating better Alternatively, new technology offers a better way of processing the railway gauging data, so that cataloguing the assets isn’t such a difficult task. Innovations in software, data, and internet infrastructure can automate the process of cataloguing assets. In

November 2020, Atkins applied to an Innovate UK Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) competition, which called for entries showcasing innovation in automated survey processing for railway structure gauging. We were successful in our funding application for both phase one and phase two of the project, collaborating with Network Rail to deliver a successful project outcome. Our goal was twofold: to demonstrate innovations capable of enhancing Network Rail’s interpretation of point cloud data, and to accurately locate and identify trackside features from point cloud data, enabling accurate gauging clearance processing. This would help Network Rail to survey its network and assets remotely, providing enormous benefits: less time on track for staff would save money, as well as reducing the safety risks for staff. An automated process would help to reduce human error and it would enable Network Rail to meet the ORR’s regulations and de-risk the railway as a whole, providing an up-to-date inventory of all the assets in proximity to the tracks. The new platform takes the survey data from Network Rail and prepares it (a form of data management which ensures it has the right IDs, etc.) before feeding into an AI system that processes it with a high degree of accuracy. The system deploys a set of tools that enables us to validate the data against the current national gauging database, where all the most recent gauging profile data is stored. This ensures that identified assets are matched to Network Rail’s previous records, enabling seamless replacement of gauging data.

Putting data in the driving seat

The machine learning model was trained using manually classified point cloud data. After assessing its initial accuracy, we classified more training data for the least-accurate assets and retrained the model. This allowed an iterative improvement in accuracy and this cycle was repeated until classification accuracy was maximised for each asset. To deliver the best solution, we needed to build a bespoke product. We combined the computational geometry techniques into our own methodology for processing the geometry accurately. And, as even the best AI system will never be 100% accurate, we developed a human-in-the-loop checking of the AI outputs to pick up misclassified assets in the process, creating a ‘fail safe’ system where any errors would quickly be exposed and corrected, managing the risk downstream.

This solution enables vast volumes of data to be processed quickly, accurately, and without using large teams of people. What used to take a trained employee up to half a day to manually identify and produce gauging profiles, now takes the inference system a matter of seconds. By further training the AI using future

project data, and by keeping the machine learning model at the cutting-edge using Atkins’ expert data science team, the accuracy of asset detection will continue to improve. The output geometries we create have already been validated against the baseline of contemporary survey methods in the national gauging database in a study overseen by the technical authority at Network Rail. Yet the benefits from processing greater amounts of data more quickly extend still further. Atkins has applied rolling stock asset management retrofit expertise to improve the data capture process. We have successfully supported Angel Trains during the design, approvals, and installation of a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) scanner, super HD Forward Facing CCTV, and associated computers and antennas on a GWR Class 165 unit. This equipment captures gauging structure data during regular passenger service and automatically relays the data for analysis. These projects show that, when engineering and IT integration capabilities are brought together, we can combine traditional and innovative ways of working to deliver high value benefits that maximise the efficiency of the operational railway.

We have really enjoyed working as partners and co-investors with Network Rail bringing innovation to the gauging data processing stream of Infrastructure Monitoring. We have delivered an automated LiDAR data interpretation tool by training artificial intelligence with our leading gauging data expertise. This capability, combined with our proven ability to retrofit affordable sensors to in-service trains, is an exciting leap forward in improving the efficiency, timeliness, and accuracy of the gauging database process.

Mark Fielding-Smith National & Digital services Director

It’s a work in progress, but survey data automation is a case study in how digital technology can facilitate intelligent automation that increases safety, efficiency, and productivity, eliminating repetitive and laborious manual processes that slow things down and sap momentum. All so that Network Rail can keep the tracks safe, without so much strain.

If you’d like to find out more about our automated solutions, please email Daniel.Derbyshire@atkinsglobal.com

Re model ling

Carstairs Junction

Carstairs is in the upper Clyde valley, 200 metres above sea level, and on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) 46km from Glasgow. Its junction with the 44km line to Edinburgh is to the east of its station. In addition to these main lines, it served various long-closed branch lines. It is now served by a two-hourly service between Glasgow and Edinburgh, though it has over 200 passenger and freight services pass through the junction on an average midweek day.

In its day, Carstairs was a busy railway centre with a grand station, having a 91-metre-long building comprising of ladies’ and gentlemen's waiting rooms, a telegraph office, a tearoom, and offices for the station staff. Its curved 300-metre island platform was originally between the Up and Down main lines with Up and Down loop lines for express trains to pass stopping trains. Adjacent to the station were motive power and train crew depots and, eventually, an electrification depot.

1970s modernisation

The WCML was fully electrified in the early 1970s, accompanied by re-signalling and an extensive remodelling of the track layout. To provide 90mph running, the Up line through the station was a

heavily canted curve whilst the previous Down loop became the Down main line away from the station.

The connection from Edinburgh to the Down platform has a reverse cant as its two switches cross the superelevated Up main line with a 15mph speed limit. A further complication of this high-speed curved line was its deep ballasting which required the Up platform to be raised. This necessitated steps and continuous railings between the different levels of the Up and Down platforms due to the presence of the original station buildings.

When the Motherwell Signalling Centre opened in 1972, it controlled the WCML as far south as Gretna. When this closed in 2019, its area of control was transferred to the West of Scotland signalling centre. In the late 1990s, the relay room at Carstairs suffered from wiring degradation which had the potential risk of a wrong side failure. Hence, it had to be replaced as a matter of urgency. This was done using a novel interfaced SSI solution which left all the 1970s outside signal cabling and equipment in place.

DAVID SHIRRES

Carstairs station and depot in the 1950s.

PHOTO: CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION

The motive power depot closed in 1966 to become a stabling point. Locomotives were needed here until the early 1990s as many trains to and from Glasgow and Edinburgh were split or joined at Carstairs. Now the only such train is the Lowland Sleeper that has Edinburgh and Glasgow portions. When the original station buildings were demolished in 1999, they were replaced with a small waiting room and ticket office. With the removal of the old buildings, it was possible to level the platform.

The new layout

The 50-year-old layout at Carstairs Junction was designed for the train service of its time. Daytime trains no longer split and join at the junction and there has been an increase in through passenger trains on all three sides of the junction, as well as an increase in WCML freight trains. The old layout restricted speeds, caused many maintenance issues, and had switches and crossings that were not required with others on canted track that are difficult to maintain. Moreover, the track switches and the signalling system was at the end of its serviceable life.

To address these issues the 2km-long layout is being remodelled to:

» Replace the through siding north of the station with the new Carstairs Chord line which enables express trains to bypass the station.

» Move the Up main line to the south of the station and increase its line speed from 90 to120mph.

» Increase the speed of the Down line from 95 to120mph.

» Provide Up and Down platform lines that are generally only to be used by trains stopping at the station.

» Remodel Carstairs East Junction and Carstairs Station Junction to increase line speed from 15mph to 40mph for trains from both Glasgow and the south to Edinburgh.

» Extend the 594 metre Down passenger loop to hold 775 metre freight train.

Train from Edinburgh arriving at Carstairs experiencing negative cant as it crosses the heavily canted Up Main Line

The track and civils work is being delivered by the Rail Systems Alliance Scotland which consists of Network Rail with contractors Babcock and Arcadis who, in 2019, won a 10-year track and rail system framework contract to deliver track renewals and enhancements in Scotland. At Carstairs they are being supported by subcontractors Story and QTS and are also working with Siemens who, in 2021, won the contract for the signalling enhancements at Carstairs. The OLE work is being done by SPL Powerlines as part of their electrification framework contract.

Digital design

The complex multidisciplinary design of the Carstairs upgrade was undertaken by Arcadis using a digital twin. This was described

in a recent webinar by Chris Conroy and Prasad MN who are respectively digital and information management lead senior BIM (Building Information Management) coordinator for Arcadis Rail in Scotland.

Chris noted that although Network Rail has specified the use of Projectwise for digital collaboration, Arcadis decided to use a suite of tools to produce a digital twin to co-ordinate the design which involved 10 different disciplines. He advised that some members of the team were initially quite sceptical about this as, for them, it was a new method of working. He also understood that the client also had no previous experience of digital twins.

Yet the value of this approach was apparent well ahead of construction when it

became clear to all concerned that using of a digital model speeded up decision making and facilitated savings through design rationalisation. It also enabled project design to continue at pace during Covid when it could have been delayed by lockdowns.

The digital twin was also used to aid signal sighting, provided a virtual aid to reduce the time to train drivers on the new layout, and produced site safety briefing videos and project visualisations for external communications. All this generated positive feedback about this digital way of working which led to Arcadis being invited to provide digital design support for another major Scottish project. Chris felt that the Carstairs project’s use of BIM had made real savings, reduced project risk and increased the understanding of BIM processes within Scottish supply chain.

Prasad described how the following Bentley Systems tools were used: Projectwise for document sharing; Assetwise for asset information; AECOsim for discipline drawings; MicroStation Connect and Rail Track for 3D track design; LumenRT for signal sighting images; Open Road to create a ground surface modal; iTwin for coordination and review; Navigator for clash detection; and Context Capture for the reality mesh.

He explained how different discipline models were reviewed for conflicts at fortnightly

Bentley Navigator Tool being used for clash detection.

Embankment work to extend Down Loop prior to the

Original and new OLE structures at Carstairs prior to the blockade.

co-ordination meetings when clashes were assigned to the appropriate responsible party. In this way, over 15,000 such clashes had been identified and dealt with at an early design stage. He considered that this was just one of the many benefits which included a significant reduction in site visits and technical queries. BIM also made it much easier to collaborate with the eight design houses involved in the Carstairs project who were situated in seven cities across the world in different time zones. This included Arcadis personnel in India. He noted that the model required 2 gigabytes of data, but considered this was manageable with the available tools.

Parsad acknowledged that, although digital twins are not a new technique, the Carstairs project had given him the opportunity to use a wide variety of techniques in different circumstances to ensure that the right tool was used for the right job at the right time.

Preparatory work

This digital approach was also used to select the best blockade option and determine the preparatory work that needed to be done beforehand. Work on site started in January 2021 with the establishment of site compounds, initial survey work, and the installation of new OLE masts.

Track renewal work and further OLE work was undertaken during weekend possessions in summer 2022. This included the installation of OLE portal frames over all tracks both due to the revised layout and because such portals can be installed within the short possession times.

The value of work done to date by October 2022 was £100 million. This included installation

of 121 new OLE structures, together with 3km of track renewals and 1.5km of drainage. Work was also done during extended possessions around Christmas and New Year.

With the substantial completion of 55,000 tonnes of earthworks and 495 metres of retaining walls or regrading, the stage was set for the start of the blockade works which is in three stages:

1. From 4 to 19 March - All lines blocked

2. 20 March to 21 April - Route open between Edinburgh and Carlisle on weekdays with all lines blocked during 54-hour weekend possessions.

3. 24 April to 4 June - Route open between Glasgow / Edinburgh and Carlisle on weekdays with all lines blocked during weekend / bank holiday possessions.

Carstairs station remains closed between 4 March and 30 May.

During stage 1 and the weekend closures, freight is diverted via the Glasgow and South Western line via Dumfries whilst passengers from Glasgow and Edinburgh are bussed to Carlisle. During stage 2, weekday services between Glasgow and Carlisle

trains are diverted to use the Edinburgh to Carstairs line by reversing at Midcalder Junction. On weekdays during stage 3, a near normal train service operates.

Blockade work

By the end of the first blockade between 4 and 20 March, the South Junction onto the WCML was installed and the associated OLE and signalling work undertaken. This required the installation of four S&C units with associated OLE and signalling work, with 54 hours of wheels-free testing required to commission the junction. Elsewhere, three lines were plain lined and redundant S&C was recovered. OLE

By 24 March new main lines are in place as some of the new Edinburgh lines, one of which required part of the station platform to be shaved off.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

work included the removal of 6 portals, 27 masts, 5.8km of wiring, and running out of a kilometre of wiring with new neutral sections and switch feeds. During this first stage, a data change for the junction remodelling was made at the West of Scotland Signal Centre, two signalling gantries were installed, and two others were removed.

During the second stage the WCML Up and Down lines and the extended Down Passenger Loop (which is the 775-metre freight loop) were laid. This requires the installation of eight S&C units and associated signalling and S&C work. The installation of 6.8km of OLE wire also took place during this stage.

The final stage of the blockade will complete the Up and Down platform lines, the Up Sidings and Up Passenger Loop, as well as the new Carstairs Chord line to enable the junction to be fully opened. This will require the installation of six S&C units with much tamping to be done throughout the junction. The OLE work in this stage includes 2.3km of OLE wire runs with the replacement of neutral sections.

The three stages of the blockade will require 107 engineering trains totalling 1,768 wagons to deliver 43,635 tonnes of ballast and 11,559 tonnes of sand, as well as to remove 55,658 tonnes of spoil. This is required for 11.2km of new track, 30

new point ends, and the replacement or recovery of 41 point ends.

Civil engineering work includes over 55,000 tonnes of earthworks, 495 metres of retaining walls and slope regrading, and 4.3km of drainage. At Carstairs station, a small amount will be shaved off the east end of the Down platform to provide a higher speed curve on the approach to the platform. In addition, copes on the Up platform will be adjusted as the Up platform line will no longer be canted for 90mph running.

The OLE work included the installation of 74 new structures, 191 new OLE piles for 27.5km of new OLE wiring with 125 OLE foundations removed.

The signalling work included 36 new signals, 30 signal refurbishment, two new signalling gantries with two old gantries removed, 5.3km of troughing with 40km of cable route renewals and refurbishment. The signals are controlled by Siemens Trackguard WTS digital signalling technology which uses an IP-based network to connect objects to the interlockings and control centres. This was its first use in Scotland. In addition, 87 functional supply points are being commissioned during the weekend possessions. At the end of the blockage, a 69-hour

(Above) S&C units for South Junction on titling wagons.

(Below left) Carstairs station on 18 March when the new main lines are being laid.

(Below right) Snow 200 metres above sea level was a challenge.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

signalling commissioning is required to open the junction to traffic.

During the blockade, the opportunity was taken to take advantage of the reduced train service to do other work. As well as small-scale routine work, this includes a 10-week closure of the 279-metre-platform one Glasgow Central for track and platform work and the installation of a new bridge at Ravenscraig. This 6,000-tonne structure is being driven into position using self-propelled modular transporters (SPMT) in what is believed to be the biggest move of its kind in Europe.

Looking to the future

The statistics show the scale of the Carstairs remodelling project and explain its £164 million price tag. They also indicate the challenges associated with the work. With a workforce of around 300 people signing into the site each day, co-ordinating the work of different disciplines within a constrained area cannot have been easy.

This work was long overdue as it is 50 years since the layout at Carstairs was last remodelled and re-signalled. In the early 1970s, Carstairs saw seven daytime trains per day between London and Glasgow with a

best time of exactly five hours. Now there are 19 such trains with a best time of four hours and 30 minutes.

The junction also presented significant maintenance difficulties as indicated by a 50mph temporary speed restriction at Carstairs which thwarted a record-breaking attempt to make the fastest London to Glasgow journey in June 2021 when a Pendolino unit clocked at 3 hours, 53 minutes, and one second for this run. This was just 21 seconds slower than the record set by British Rail’s Advanced Passenger Train in 1984.

The remodelling will resolve track maintenance issues of poor joints with a track geometry causing high rail wear, as well as technical noncompliances of S&C on curves and tight toe-to-toe distances between S&C units. As well as easing this maintenance burden, improved switching arrangements will provide easier isolations and reduce service impact during perturbed working. These and the benefits of being able to accommodate 775-metre freight trains, a bypass line and improved junction speeds to improve Edinburgh to Glasgow and Carlisle journey times, a more flexible layout, and 120mph

running on main lines through Carstairs, give the junction a layout fit for its current train service.

Although it is 30 years since daytime locomotive-hauled passenger trains were joined and split at Carstairs, the layout has still to offer this functionality as the Edinburgh and Glasgow portions of the Lowland Sleeper train are combined here. HS2 services to Scotland will re-introduce the practice of London to Scotland trains having separate Edinburgh and Glasgow portions when they start running in about 10 years’ time. The plan is for these trains, comprising of 2 x 200-metre units, to split at Carlisle, after which the Glasgow portion will speed past Carstairs station at 120mph.

(Above) New bridge at Ravenscraig above to be installed.

(Below) Work to extend to Down Passenger Loop at the eastern end of Carstairs Junction on 22 March.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

All Change AT CREWE

In 2021, Rail Engineer reported on the Crewe Basford Hall and Independent Lines (BHIL) re-signalling. BHIL is an early part of the overall large Crewe Hub programme which will consist of many individual projects and phases. In this article we look at the whole programme, which was presented to the IRSE in February by Geoff Paley. Geoff’s presentation was before the two-year delay to HS2 Phase 2, announced in March.

Crewe has always been an important junction on the West Coast Main Line, so its signalling infrastructure is extensive and complicated, with six busy routes and a connection to HS2 to come. The station first opened in July 1837 with Crewe becoming a major junction when the lines to Manchester Piccadilly, North Wales, Stoke-on-Trent/Derby, and Shrewsbury/South Wales were provided a few years later. It is the last main station before the branch to Liverpool Lime Street at Weaver Junction, with line going on to Scotland.

To the south of the station there are lines to London and to Birmingham from Stafford. The station was modernised around 1861 with the Independent Lines tunnels and the Basford Hall sidings for freight trains constructed in the early 1900s, along with an island platform extension on the western side of the station in 1905.

Overdue upgrade

The last major resignalling took place in 1985, with the creation of the Crewe Signalling Control Centre (CSCC) located

near to North Junction and the Independent Lines. While this was an extensive resignalling, it did not include the Independent Lines as they were proposed for closure, nor Crewe’s other fringes, and the resignalling only covered the station area and north and south junctions. Today, CSCC is approaching 40 years old, and its asset life is starting to cause problems along with the other much older signalling. The Independent Lines were not closed and remain an important freight route. Salop Goods Junction signal box, which controls most of the Independent Lines dates from 1901 and was last resignalled in 1936.

The 1985 resignalling modernised and simplified the track layout, eliminating

PAUL DARLINGTON

many points and crossings and provided 80mph (130 km/h) running over the North Junction. At the same time, all but one of the six 1905 western side extension platforms were taken out of use. Today, even after Covid-19, rail use is increasing and will play an important part in future carbon reduction, so some of the platforms and routes taken out of use 40 years ago are to be reinstated. The CSCC signalling interlocking is life-expired and the canopy structure,

installed in 1905 is also in poor condition, with much of it currently needing scaffolding to maintain its integrity. Health and safety systems are much improved since 1985, as are the testing and assurance processes for signalling work. So, as well as being a much bigger programme than the one that took place in 1985, it must be delivered differently and to modern standards.

Cheshire East Council, HS2 Ltd, the Department for Transport, and

Network Rail have developed the Crewe Hub programme, which aims to provide more capacity, better connectivity, more resilience, and improved access and facilities at the station, and to accommodate the HS2 trains that are proposed to call at Crewe and to provide infrastructure to fit with the North West transport strategy. Phase 1 of HS2 involves the railway

being built between London and Birmingham, with the line extended from the West Midlands to Crewe in Phase 2a. Phase 2b will connect Crewe to Manchester.

The Crewe Hub programme also includes station renewals and enhancements, station area resignalling and remodelling, and Alsager/Kidsgrove line resignalling which features 16 tricky level crossings. Approximately four miles of the main line will also be realigned to accommodate the HS2 trains calling at Crewe. North of Crewe, Winsford to Weaver Junction is being resignalled along with provision of a northern connection to HS2.

The Crewe Northern Connection will be provided to the north of Crewe tunnel to connect the route of HS2 to the WCML. Crewe North Rolling Stock Depot (RSD) and Crewe North Infrastructure Maintenance Base – Rail (IMB-R) will be located between the route of HS2 and the WCML where they diverge to the east of Walley’s Green. The RSD will serve as an operational and maintenance hub for HS2 rolling stock and the IMB-R will be an infrastructure maintenance facility and storage area for the Proposed Scheme.

Individual projects

The Crewe Programme is a £5.7 billion scheme, made up of Network Rail funding of £1.7 billion and HS2 funding of £4 billion. The ultimate project funder / strategic sponsor is the Department of Transport, with delivery by Network Rail and HS2 responsible for its part of the programme. A small programme lead team will be the ‘guiding mind’ between HS2 and Network Rail. The Crewe Programme is not an alliance but consists of 22 individual projects each with their own profit and loss accounts and contracting strategies.

There are four delivery models for the projects:

» Network Rail funded and delivered. Projects include, for example, life extension works and resignalling of the Alsager/Kidsgrove line with level crossings to be closed, upgraded, or renewed. Recontrol to Manchester Rail

Operating Centre (MROC) of Gresty Lane, Crewe Steel Works. Independent Lines resignalling and diversionary route upgrades for the blockades of the main station area.

» Jointly funded and delivered by Network Rail. This includes the core Crewe station area resignalling, major station works and a new roof, and platform extensions for HS2 trains.

» HS2 funded and jointly delivered. Such as the Crewe north and south connections with HS2 and rolling stock depot.

» HS2 funded and delivered. This will provide the HS2 running tunnels under Crewe, with Network Rail undertaking the assurance and Asset Protection and Optimisation (ASPRO) requirements.

Much coordination will be required with other projects being delivered around the country during the Crewe Programme, as the signalling and other engineering resources required are huge with many ‘peaks and troughs’ for key people and material. The programme is so big that some of the infrastructure will need life extending until it can be replaced during the later stages. The life extension works include Crewe station OFF Indicators and Train Ready To Start (TRTS) equipment; Crewe Coal Yard interlocking, Crewe Steelworks interlocking and signals; Beeston Castle & Tarporley signal box diagram and telecoms; and Winsford signal box signals, location cases, and telecoms.

Programme schedule

Barthomley Level Crossing will be renewed in summer 2023 with the crossing made ‘bridleway only’ with no vehicle access and the crossing to be provided with a ‘Flex’ Miniature Stop Lights (MSL) system. This will address misuse issues at the crossing with the gates being left open, and reduce the safety risk with vehicles no longer using the crossing. A vehicle turning space large enough for refuse vehicles will be created to serve the old crossing keeper’s cottage, which is now a private residence. Product acceptance of the changes to the Flex MSL system to accommodate the method of working at Barthomley Level Crossing with protecting signals is another work stream for the Crewe Programme. Work is also required to strengthen an overbridge for a farmer to use instead of the level crossing. There are a total of 15 crossings on the Alsager Kidsgrove line with two of these being in the top five list of unsafe crossings in the North West. The aim is to close as many as possible and improve the safety of others commencing 2024 as agreements are reached.

Any change in level crossing design is not easy and requires much consultation with users, authorities, and risk assessments. The time and work involved must never be underestimated.

Crewe Carriage Sidings level crossing to the south of Crewe and on the Alsager line is only a small crossing for staff use

into the depot, but it is one of the highest risk crossings in the North West and is the only access to the carriage sidings. Closure of the crossing will require building a total new access road across fields and the work underway has come across an environmental issue by disturbing some white crayfish. Austropotamobius pallipes is an endangered European freshwater crayfish, and the only crayfish native to the British Isles. Nothing is ever easy with level crossings!

Work underway

Work is already underway to deliver the outline design stage for the resignalling of the Alsager line to Kidsgrove and the level crossing renewals, with completion in 2025. This will include recontrol to the MROC, which will also require work in the ROC on the second floor to create the workstation with hardware and software changes. Renewal of the manual-controlled CCTV level crossings with obstacle detection at Alsager and Radway Green will also be delivered in this stage. The resignalling of the line is a critical enabler for the Crewe area works for train diversions.

Basford Hall and Independent Lines should see commissioning in 2025 with ‘digital ready’ colour light signals, control from MROC, and resignalling to passenger train signalling standards to support future train diversions for later stages of the programme. Speed increases for freight trains and enhanced drainage and track

renewals will also be provided to improve asset integrity, as there is a significant flooding risk on the route.

A second signallers training terminal with be provided in the ROC and the project will also provide bi-directional signalling on the Up Independent Chester line. The project is 163 Signalling Equivalent Units (SEU), and so is a major resignalling project in itself, never mind being part of the Crewe Programme. Under-track crossings and overhead line work is already ongoing as part of the 20-stage works required.

Crewe South connection offline build is currently scheduled for 2025 - 2028 and to accommodate HS2 civils preparatory works. This will involve the off-line diversion of WCML 60 metres west to create space for the HS2 connection works, along with major civil engineering works associated with HS2 for bridges, grade crossings, and utilities.

Crewe station core works area

The Crewe station core area works should be delivered in 2028/2029, with the Crewe area fully resignalled and recontrolled to MROC with the provision of colour light signals and ‘digital ready’ signalling. The layout will be enhanced for additional services, which includes putting back some of the platforms on the western side of the station which were taken out of use in 1985, and

provision for HS2 trains with longer platforms - 500 metres in total. The station renewals work, including a new station roof canopy, will also enable the HS2 southern connection build. As much pre-work will be delivered offline as possible, but a major blockade with diversion of WCML services via the Independent Lines and Stoke is likely to be required. The work involves 106 points, 89 signals, along with 18km of track, traction power immunisation, an Autotransformer Feeder system (ATF) commissioned, and 24km of overhead wire replaced. To illustrate the size of the work required there will be 669 signalling routes provided. Birmingham New Street commissioning (which was a large blockade last Christmas) was only 325 signalling routes: less than half the size of just the Crewe station core area. The exact staging is to be determined but many small stages are planned, with the aim of retaining as many services as possible during the blockade(s). Station power supplies, stairways, and passenger entrances are just some of the other works that have to be accommodated into the extremely busy programme. Some of the overhead line equipment is supported by the delicate station roof structure, so alternative structures will be required to allow the roof to be replaced and, to make things even more difficult, some of the station is ‘listed’. Other work

required in this stage is the recontrol of the interlockings at Crewe Steel works and Crewe Coal Yard signal boxes to MROC.

The station is in need of improvements to meet future passenger growth, and to accommodate HS2 400 metre services and dwell times to provide a coherent experience for passengers using a high-speed station. To meet passenger growth based on the new station platform layout (and moving the station operating area in effect 80 metres south) there is a need to increase the size of the Nantwich Road entrance, concourse, and gate lines. Wider stairs to the platforms and the upgrade of the subway for passengers to access the western platform island, will also be required.

Challenges

In designing the work, the Crewe station core works team must meet regulatory compliance and work closely with the ORR to ensure National Technical Specification Notices (NTSNs) compliance. The station operator must also ensure a fully accessible, safe, and secure station. The station layout will also make provision for a new transfer deck to Weston Road and will integrate the station and canopy design into the wider rail systems work. The same designer will be responsible for the rail system, platform civils engineering, track, and overhead line, as well

as the station works to reduce the contractor interfaces.

Key challenges include the fact that the work will impact all six routes in and out of Crewe station and there are many stakeholders that will be affected, including freight and train operators, depots, and Cheshire East Council. The logistics are demanding with limited access and temporary land takes, as Crewe is a lot more built up than it was for the 1985 resignalling. There will be a reliance on Basford Hall Independent Lines and Alsager line resignalling being completed on time, as the diversionary routes will be critical. Early track access to carry out as much preliminary work as possible will also be required. The volume of work will also create a resource demand for the whole rail network.

Crewe South connection’s tie in to WCML and HS2 will follow the Crewe station core area stage, which will include provision for an ETCS overlay for the area. This is likely to be during 2028 - 2034, which should also see Crewe North construction sidings, north connection offline build, and Winsford-Weaver re-signalling. Winsford signal box is a ‘hybrid’ box consisting of a lever frame and entrance / exit panel which is in very poor condition with scaffolding supporting the building, so the assets in the area are in dire need of life extension and renewal.

The final stage of the Crewe Programme is planned for 2036 - 2038 with HS2 Phase 2B north connection operational for Crewe Hub trains, and a new timetable for HS2 services calling at Crewe along with HS2 trains operating under Crewe on their route to Manchester. It’s an exciting time for rail in South Cheshire and Rail Engineer looks forward to reporting on one of the largest and most challenging rail projects in the county over the next 15 years.

Welcome to Amey

Full Integration capability with all disciplines

Amey is one of the largest rail engineering specialists in the UK. We have expertise in all areas from signalling, telecommunications, passenger information, and on-train systems. Our large design teams cover track, structures, electrification and power systems. We also have one of the UK’s largest teams of data analytics and strategic asset management specialists. We work from concept development to design, construction, commissioning and maintenance. Amey undertake the maintenance on the award winning Docklands Light Railway, Manchester Metrolink and now the new Cardiff Core Valley Lines section of the South Wales Metro.

Innovative design solutions cover all technologies

Amey offers innovative and versatile design solutions. Our teams are made up of highly skilled engineers and project managers who have experience on a wide range of technologies and systems from the UK and around the world.

Our innovative approach and wide experience allow us to work on both old and new technology and provide cost effective solutions to any rail project. Our teams are leading the new Cardiff Metro project and the Transpennine Route Upgrade.

Amey

rail

Signalling a fresh, new approach

PAUL DARLINGTON

The cost of signalling in the UK rail industry has been a concern for many years and signalling renewals are a major cost for Network Rail at around £200 million a year. There is also a huge renewals programme required across the network, with some signalling assets over a hundred years old. How old do you think is the oldest signalling interlocking still in operation on the network today? We shall tell you at the end of this article, but a clue is that many museums have signalling assets on display which are newer than some still in use on the main line network!

An Office of Rail and Road (ORR) market study carried out in 2021 found that the market for major renewals in Britain is dominated by Siemens and Alstom, and the ORR had concerns over the value for money of signalling and the ability of new players to enter the signalling market.

However, this is starting to change, and Rail Engineer recently visited Sella Controls’ Rail Support Facility in Coalville to learn of its new Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)-based signalling being developed in collaboration with Amey Consulting. This has resulted in Network Rail approval for the Amey Consulting-configured Hima HIMatrix Manually Controlled Barrier (MCB) level crossing.

The approved product is the result of seven years of ‘in house’ investment and R&D by both Amey Consulting and Sella. As the Hima PLC safety expert, Sella developed the earlystage concept and logic, and provided expert advice to Amey Consulting on best practice, alongside supporting activities such as problem solving, code walkthroughs, and programme

reviews. But the level crossing is only one of the modern COTS safety PLC solutions that has been developed over the past few years through open-innovation and successful collaboration between the two companies.

Expensive but safe

British signalling may have a reputation for being expensive, but it is very safe and generally reliable. For example, there are just under 5,800 level crossings in use on the mainline rail network in Britain with another 1,500 in use on heritage and minor railways. Many of these use old technology and methods of working, but level crossing incidents in the UK are well below the European average. The total number of persons killed by level crossing accidents per 100,000 population is 1.18 in Hungary, an average of 0.345 throughout Europe, and 0.02 in Britain. So, any new system and supplier must be able to meet the stringent design and verification and validation requirements for safety critical signalling control systems.

Amey Consulting has many years’ experience of Britain’s signalling principles and stringent design requirements. It is also keen to introduce new equipment, innovations, and ways of working to reduce costs and increase efficiency, by using standard products and tools that are commercially available, rather than expensive bespoke signalling technology. The current UK signalling market is currently one where the equipment supplier is generally the system integrator. Amey Consulting’s mission is to encourage a more costeffective choice of equipment and interoperability for the signalling market.

Amey Consulting wants to learn from other industry sectors, such as utilities, power generation, aviation, and defence. The rail signalling industry has a tendance to think it is different and unique to other sectors. However, many other sectors also have safety critical requirements. With a railway you can shut a route to perform work and upgrades, but in some other sectors the control systems can never be turned off and must always be 100% available. The railway doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas and lessons can be learned from other sectors. Often, other industry safety sectors have access to R&D resources which are far greater than those of traditional rail signalling companies.

Therefore Amey Consulting, Sella Controls, and Network Rail have been working together to introduce technology from safety industries outside of rail and to provide really costeffective, competitive, and novel signalling solutions. Hima Group of Germany, which specialises in safety-related automation solutions, acquired UK Sella Controls in February 2023.

Since the acquisition, Hima has established Sella Controls’ Coalville and Ashby offices as its ’Centre for Excellence for Rail Solutions’. Hima has

provided safety control systems technology for many years and its systems are used in controlling UK, French, and German nuclear plants. Its PLCs are also used in numerous safety applications including oil and gas, chemical plants, and railway signalling applications in many countries throughout the world.

Sella Controls is an independent engineering company specialising in the design and supply of integrated safety, control, and automation systems. It has access not only to Hima’s safety critical products, but also to other suppliers of the best stateof-the-art control products throughout the world. Sella’s systems can be found in highly complex and often hazardous environments within a variety of industry sectors.

The company is not new to rail and, for example, has been providing Station Information and Security Systems (SISS) for many years, including information displays, closed circuit television, long line public address, induction loops and passenger help point technologies. Its scope has included complete endto-end project delivery from consultancy, detailed design, build, and final installation and commissioning. Its clients include Network Rail, London Underground, and a growing number of train operating companies.

Heart of the system

The heart of the signalling control systems currently being tested at the Rail Support Facility is the SIL 4 PLC supplied by Hima. The unit is compact and modular with network capability via Ethernet and serial input / output, and it can be used as a standalone device or in distributed applications. SIL 4 (Safety Integrity Level 4) in Standard IEC 61508 is the highest level of safety integrity and represents the level required to avoid disastrous accidents.

(Above) Points machine manufactured by Hanning & Kahl, under test at factory.

Amey Consulting (with the support of Sella) has built upon this to achieve full SIL4 certification at the application level and achieved assurance to comply with the CENELEC ‘Functional Safety for Rail’ Standards (EN 50124, EN 50128, and EN50129).

Hima’s range of PLCs have a long and established safety pedigree and provides significant improvements over current signalling technologies. The PLC is programmed and configured using the modern and easy-to-use Hima SILworX engineering tool. This uses an intuitive drag-and-drop interface to manage and configure the controllers as well as the remote input/ output systems. Error diagnostics, using the same interface, result in fewer user errors and enable integrators to commission safety systems more quickly and adapt to new requirements.

To compliment SILworX, Amey Consulting has also developed the Amey HIMatrix Applications Manual along with the tools and techniques to satisfy the Network Rail Signalling Design Handbook (SDH), and the Signal Works Testing Handbook (SWTH) requirements for railway signalling applications. These have been developed in such a way that signalling designers and testers will find it easier to transition from traditional railway signalling control systems to the novel PLC based signalling. The Hima COTS PLC also uses safeethernet, a transmission protocol based on standard Ethernet, but which also fulfils SIL 4 requirements.

Systems under test

The Taffs Well depot control system was undergoing extensive testing at the Coalville centre for installation later this year at the base for Transport for Wales’ (TfW) new fleet of Citylink Trains. The depot system consists

of a fully redundant central interlocking PLC, connected to five distributed location cases delivering a SIL 4 Depot Control System (DCS). This is integrated with Frauscher Axle Counters to provide train detection and the control of points, and the distributed approach provides a significant reduction in installation costs. Once installed, the system will present the depot layout and control via a modern signallers display in the new Taffs Well control room. This is also based on standard COTS components and appears to look like a typical Network Rail signaller’s display, but it also uses pull down menus and windows, similar to a standard computer, making it easier to train people new to rail.

The DCS solution is flexible in its design to enable control solutions for SIL 2, SIL 3, and SIL 4 applications as appropriate. This is important as SIL 4 is expensive and complex, and making everything SIL 4 results in over engineering and unnecessarily increases the cost of signalling.

Sella Controls was also testing its SIL 3 Independent Emergency Shutdown System for Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail’s (IE) electrified network. This is also a modern COTSbased solution to safely and independently shutdown and isolate the railway in an emergency. The scope includes the complete safety design, engineering, build, installation, and commissioning of the solution. It uses the Sella Controls’ Tracklink® product suite and the Hima HIMatrix Safety PLC.

The system features a fully redundant safety PLC architecture across 21 locations delivering a SIL 3 safety shutdown and isolation system for traction power. This system will be completely independent of the main power control system, preventing the energisation of power during

an isolation or emergency shutdown. The contract also includes the supply of Sella Controls’ Tracklink SCADA application to provide operator and maintainer workstations to monitor system performance, event analysis and data exchange with the existing traction power SCADA System.

Tracklink Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) for traction power substation control and automation has also achieved full Network Rail Product Acceptance for electrification control and substation automation. Tracklink RTU is the result of a partnership between Sella Controls and Mitsubishi Electric using their COTS PLC. The first installation went live in January 2016 at West Ham Feeder Station on the Anglia route and since then it has been deployed across the UK rail network for Network Rail, Transport for London, and Docklands Light Rail. This has also been deployed for tunnel ventilation control and other safety related systems. As part of the HS2 enabling works program, Sella also recently installed a Tracklink solution at Euston to provide substation automation and control. This consists of a fully distributed solution across four substations for both remote and local control as well as auto reconfiguration of power around the site.

Level crossing PLC

The PLC signalling level crossing control system has been approved following successful trial at Magdalen Road level crossing in the Anglia region. The approval is initially for a Manually Controlled Barrier (MCB) level crossing using relays for lamp proving, but this is likely to be easily extended to cover other level crossings, such as MCB CCTV, MCB Obstacle Detector, and Automatic Half Barrier (AHB). Both parties have invested significant time and money in developing the system in collaboration. This process began several years ago when Mark O’Neill, Amey Consulting technical director signalling and Sella Controls’ former business development director Iain Wilkinson (now retired) sensed an opportunity for innovation and commenced R&D activities. The Network Rail approval requires that the level crossing HIMatrix PLC installations are designed, verified, manufactured, installed, tested, and validated in accordance with the Amey Sella HIMatrix Applications Manual.

The Hima PLC is easily programmed using standard languages, with no specialist railway-specific training required and the safety case has been developed to provide open access to the technology for other signalling suppliers and consultants that do not have such technology of their own. Therefore, other signalling

companies will be able to use the applications manuals and safety approach developed by Amey Consulting via a licence arrangement. The new AHB concept is configured using a simple spreadsheet and designed so it can be installed by any supplier. This could even include Network Rail’s internal works delivery organisation to further reduce the cost of level crossings. The COTS PLC is located in a single equipment location, rather than in an equipment room like traditional level crossing control systems, to further reduce costs.

Amey Consulting says it is a signalling solutions provider, rather than a technology supplier, and it is in its interest to introduce COTS technology so it can develop the most costeffective solutions for clients. It sees the level crossing COTS PLC safety technology as one example of the way forward

The robust relationship established between Amey and Sella Controls is a compelling success story for rail industry innovation. Complementary capabilities have been unlocked through an open-innovation process, enabling the firms to collaborate in concert towards the effective transfer of innovative (COTS Safety PLC) technologiesembracing learning beyond traditional railway pathways.

This approach emphasises the importance of combining breakthrough technologies with appropriate business models in order to achieve successful innovation. In context of which, HIMA group’s acquisition of Sella Controls could not have come at a better time.

Robin Wright Project Manager (Sella Controls: a HIMA company)

for the signalling industry, introducing modern technology, innovation, and open access, to reduce the costly supplier monopoly that currently exists in the signalling industry. “As long as the main equipment suppliers are also the main system integration and implementation contractors, there will be limited competition,” said Mark.

Other developments

Amey Consulting and Sella Controls have also developed other signalling concepts for the PLC, including a replacement Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM) system, tokenless-block system, safety transmission system, Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) enhancements, and a universal object controller to replace trackside Solid-State Interlocking Trackside Functional Modules (SSI TFMs). The low power consumption provides a more carbon-friendly and sustainable PLC solution which can also work with an off-grid power supply, and it has been tested with wireless networks in Europe to avoid the need for long fibre runs.

Amey Consulting has also developed a digital railway solution using the Hima COTS

PLC architecture, which has been interfaced to the Indra Radio Block Centre using the EULYNX protocol. EULYNX is a European initiative to standardise interfaces and signalling systems, with the goal of significant reduction of the lifecycle costs. This will also help mitigate equipment obsolescence and will not lock in infrastructure managers to one supplier. The very competitive mobile telecoms industry is also doing something similar to EULYNX with its Open intelligent Radio Access Network (O-RAN) initiative, so it’s an area where Amey Consulting and the rail industry are not on their own. There is much to learn from other industries, but it has to be done very carefully by people who know what they are doing. Competition is important in driving engineering innovation and creativity at an affordable cost. However, this needs to be handled appropriately to incentivise the right outcomes and provide systems that are safe, reliable, and can be supported throughout their lifetime. Amey Consulting and Sella Controls have established the right framework to achieve this, combining Amey Consulting’s knowledge and experience of signalling principles and applications, and Sella’s specialisation in the design and supply of integrated safety, control, and automation systems, in highly complex and hazardous industry sectors. Sella also knows all about working in the rail industry.

Now, to answer the question about the oldest signalling interlocking still in use on the British rail network: Monks Sidings in the North West was provided in 1875 (yes, that’s 1875 and not 1975). This illustrates the huge requirement for new modern, safe, and cost-effective PLC based control systems.

RAIL SOLUTIONS

Sella Controls is an independent engineering company specialising in the design and supply of integrated safety and control solutions for the rail industry.

Infrastructure Solutions

TRACKLINK® Electrification SCADA

TRACKLINK® Substation Automation

Rail Depot Control Level Crossing Controllers

SISS Telecommunications

Tunnel Ventilation SCADA

Integrated Control

Station Management Systems

Mobile Solutions

TRACKLINK® ASDO/CSDE Solutions

TRAINNET® ASDO GNSS/Odometry Solutions

TRAINNET® TCMS Solutions

Over Speed Protection Systems

Traction Power Control

Rail Assurance Consultancy

SIL Determination & Assurance

Independent Safety Assessment

What next for mobile telecoms technology?

Mobile telecoms technology has dramatically improved of the last 40 years and has transformed the way we communicate, both in industry and society at large. There has been a steady increase in technology development from analogue first generation, through 2G GSM, the first digital mobile communications, 3G, 4G, to the introduction of 5G technology.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has now released report ITU-R M.2516-0 ‘Future technology trends of terrestrial International Mobile Telecommunications systems towards 2030 and beyond’, which is likely to form 6G. The report provides information on the technology trends for terrestrial International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) systems.

5G made IMT systems more efficient, fast, flexible, and reliable when providing a variety of services such as enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC), and massive Machine-Type Communications (mMTC). Besides significantly enhancing the data rate and mobility provided in 4G, 5G introduced advantages such as spectrum efficiency, latency, reliability, connection density, energy efficiency, and area traffic capacity to efficiently support emerging usage scenarios and applications.

Significant advances

5G comes with various new features and capabilities, including network slicing, Orthogonal FrequencyDivision Multiplexing (OFDM) and Massive Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MMIMO).

5G also introduces another new standard called 5G New Radio (NR) to replace 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution).

5G NR will build off LTE’s best capabilities and bring new benefits, such as increased energy savings for connected devices and enhanced connectivity. 5G will also operate on a new high-frequency spectrum -- millimetre wave (mmWave) -- which operates on wavelengths between 30GHz and 300GHz, compared to 4G LTE’s wavelengths of under 6GHz. Due to the mmWave spectrum, 5G requires new, small cell base stations to operate and function. The key differences between the 4G and 5G network include far lower latency, larger potential download speeds, and far smaller base stations and cell densities.

Since 2014, there have been significant advances in IMT technologies and their deployment. IMT capabilities are being continuously updated in line with user trends and technological developments. So, M.25160 now provides information on the technology trends of terrestrial IMT systems up to 2030 and beyond such as emerging technology trends and enablers, with technologies to enhance the radio network. This is all likely to form 6G.

The report says that the role of modularity and complementarity of new mobile telecoms solutions will become increasingly important in the development of more complex applications and systems. The use of data and algorithms, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), will also play an important role and that the technology innovations must complement each other.

PAUL DARLINGTON

Trends

Key new services and application trends discussed in the report include that community-driven networks and Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) will enable new models for future service provisioning. Privacy will be strongly influenced by the increased platform data economy, intelligent assistants, connected living, transhumanism (how humans can evolve beyond current physical and mental limitations by means of science and technology), and digital twins.

An increasing number of businesses are starting to adopt a platform data economy and digital strategies to remain competitive, and companies

are creating online networks to facilitate greater digital interactions between people.

Such platforms available today, range from those providing services, products, payments, and many more.

Monitoring and steering of the circular economy will be possible, helping to create better understanding of a sustainable data economy.

Development of products and technologies for zerowaste and zero-emission, and immersive digital realities to facilitate novel ways of learning, understanding, and memorising, will be required.

The role of IMT for 2030 and beyond will be to connect a number of feasible devices and

processes, as well as humans to a global information grid in a cognitive fashion. The trend towards higher data rates will continue, leading to peak data rates approaching Tbit/s indoors which will require large available bandwidths giving rise to THz communications. Indoor coverage at such rates is not easy and it’s an area that 5G has not addressed.

Holographic communications will provide real-time threedimensional representation of people, things, and their surroundings into a remote scenario. This will require at least an order of magnitude high transmission rates, ultralow latency, and powerful 3D display capability.

Advanced robotics scenarios in manufacturing will need a maximum communication link latency target in the order of 100μs and round-trip reaction times of 1 millisecond. Human operators will monitor remote machines by VR or holographictype communications, aided by tactile sensors. This could also involve actuation and control via kinaesthetic (tactile) feedback.

Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication (V2I), and autonomous driving could result in a large reduction of road accidents and traffic jams. Latency in the order of a few milliseconds will likely be needed for collision avoidance and remote driving.

Tele-diagnosis, remote surgery, and telerehabilitation in healthcare will be possible on a regular basis. Tele-diagnostic tools, medical expertise/ consultation could be available anywhere and anytime, regardless of the location of the patient and the medical practitioner. This could include remote and robotic surgery where a surgeon gets real-time audio-visual feeds of the patient that is being operated upon in a remote location.

Extremely high-rate information access points in railway stations, shopping malls, and other public places will be available. The data rates for these could be up to 1Tbps. The points will provide fibre-like speeds and could also act as the backhaul needs of millimetre-wave (mmWave) small cells. Co-existence with contemporaneous cellular services as well as security will need to be resolved.

Connectivity everywhere

‘Connectivity for everything’ will include real-time monitoring of buildings, environment, railways, roads, critical infrastructure, water, and power. The internet of biothings through smart wearable devices, and intra-body communications achieved via

implanted sensors will also drive the need for extensive reliable connectivity.

It is anticipated that private networks, applications, or vertical-specific networks, mini and micro, enterprises, and IoT / sensor networks will increase. Interoperability is one of the most significant challenges in such ubiquitous connectivity smart environments, where different products, processes, applications, use cases, and organisations are connected. Interactive immersive experience use cases will have the ability to seamlessly blend virtual and real-world environments and offer new multi-sensory experiences to users. X-Reality, such as Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) is expected to provide higher resolution, which will also require higher transmission data rates and lower end-to-end latency.

Sensing based on measuring and analysing wireless signals will open opportunities for high-precision positioning, ultra-high-resolution imaging, mapping and environment reconstruction, gesture and motion recognition, which will demand high sensing resolution, accuracy, and detection rates.

Digital twins will demand real-time and high accuracy sensing to ensure the accuracy, and low latency and high data transmission rates to guarantee real time interaction between virtual and physical worlds. Enabling efficient Machine Type Communication (MTC) will allow machines and devices to communicate with each other without direct human involvement. Real-time distributed learning, joint inferring among proliferation of intelligent devices, and collaboration between intelligent robots will demand re-thinking of communication system and network design.

In order to connect the unconnected and provide

continuously high quality mobile broadband service in various areas, it is expected that the interconnection of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks will facilitate the provision of such services. Key considerations include sustainability/energy efficiency, peak data rate/ guaranteed data rate, latency, jitter (close to zero), sensing resolution and accuracy.

Sensing based services, including traditional positioning and new functions such as imaging and mapping, will be widely integrated with future smart services, including indoor and outdoor scenarios. Very high accuracy and resolution will be needed to support a better service experience.

Networks in the future should be able to provide global coverage and full connectivity by wireless and wired, terrestrial and non-terrestrial coverage with diverse multilayer architecture. The full connectivity network should support intelligent scheduling of connectivity according to application requirements and network status to improve the resource efficiency and service experience. It will extend the provision of quality guaranteed services from outdoor to outdoor from urban to rural areas and from terrestrial to non-terrestrial locations.

High-speed comms for highspeed transport

Future systems will not only support devices on land, including high-speed trains, but will also provide services to devices in high-speed airplanes, drones, and so on. With new services and applications, more spectrum will be required to accommodate extensive mobile data traffic growth. This may require novel usage of low and mid band, and the extension to much higher frequency bands with much broader channel bandwidth. The smart utilisation of multiple bands and improvement of spectrum efficiency through advanced

technologies will be essential to achieving high throughput in limited bandwidths.

With huge numbers of new services and applications the network is required to satisfy diversified demand and personalised performance. Soft networks will need to be designed as fully service-based and native cloud-based radio access networks, which can guarantee QoS and provide consistent user experience.

The future mobile system will have stronger capabilities and support more diversified services, which will inevitably increase the complexity of the networks. Artificial Intelligence (AI) reasoning will be embedded everywhere in the future network, including physical layer design, radio resource management, network security, and application enhancement, as well as network architecture, which will result in a multi-layer deep, integrated, intelligent, network design.

Security Networks in the future will support more advanced system resilience for reliable operation and service provision, with security to provide confidentiality, integrity and availability, privacy, and safety for both humans and the environment.

Security algorithms will use machine learning to identify attacks and how to respond to them. Continuous deep learning on a packet/byte level and applying machine learning will enforce policies, detect, contain, mitigate, and prevent threats or active attacks.

A powerful, controllable radio environment will be able to dynamically change the characteristics of the radio

propagation environment and create favourable channel conditions to support higher data rate communication and improve coverage.

All these requirements will not be there on day one, just like it has taken time to deliver all the performance of 3G and 4G, and many 5G features are still some years away. However, there has been a huge step in mobile communication capabilities over the years and the ITU report suggests this is not likely to stop, and that the advances in mobile communications technology will continue.

Will the rail industry be able to benefit from the advances? Hopefully it will for both the good of rail and society.

An Indian ATP ALTERNATIVEEnhancing Safety

Automatic Train Protection (ATP) is always a hot topic. Railways across the world are forever grappling with the need to provide train drivers with additional facilities that enhance the safety of operation, and prevent human errors such as passing signals at red. Very often, ATP systems are linked with technology that can improve capacity, the ‘holy grail’ being the introduction of ERTMS and ETCS which achieve all these objectives and eliminate much of the lineside equipment if implemented in full. However, as was remarked in the recent review of the Digital Railway (Issue 200 Jan/Feb), ETCS, whilst relatively easy on new high-speed lines with captive rolling stock, is proving much harder to apply on to existing mixed traffic railways than originally thought. Not only is it expensive to provide, but the return on investment might take decades to achieve.

Indian Railways, which has a vast network, is anxious to provide an ATP system and scoured the market to see what could be obtained from the various signalling

suppliers from around the world. None of the systems on offer fulfilled its requirements and expectations, so it seized the initiative and decided to develop its own system. This has resulted in KAVACH, a system built upon standardised piece parts put together in a manner that results in a cost-effective ATP product. A recent talk given to the IRSE London & SE section by Priya Agrawal, deputy chief S&T engineer on Indian Railways, gave her the opportunity to showcase the system beyond the country’s borders.

Requirements

The need to define what the ATP system should achieve is an important first step. In basic terms, the Indian National Rail Plan requirements by 2030 are to:

» Improve operational capacity;

» Increase freight speeds to 50km/h;

» Grow rail freight by 45%;

» Increase speed on Delhi Howrah (Kolkata) and Delhi Mumbai routes to 160km/h;

» Increase speeds on other main routes to 130km/h.

To facilitate this, the ATP system has been developed to achieve:

» Prevention of SPADs;

» Roll back and collision prevention;

» Display of signals into driver’s cabs;

» Automatic whistling at level crossing gates;

» Intelligent real time health monitoring.

CLIVE KESSELL

The Indian ATP system design comprises three basic elements:

» Trackside – Station Intelligence and data gathering unit, RFID (Radio Frequency Identifiers) positioned between the running rails;

» On Board – RFID readers, Brake interface equipment, UHF, GPS and GSM aerials and associated transceivers, on board vital computer;

» Radio Communications –Towers and antennae, radio modems, UHF radio system for transmission and receiving of information.

There is no intention to remove lineside signals at the present time, thus easing the requirement for locomotive fitments and captive fleets. The foreseen data flow is via the radio network which will provide all messaging between trains and the trackside.

Developing the system

The Indian ATP has been in development since 2011. By 2012, a proof of concept

had been achieved followed in 2013 by the granting of a development order for design and manufacture by contract. The system had to have multivendor interoperability. In 2014, a trial system was deployed on a 265km section of line followed by field trials over the period 2015 to 2017, with final approval being given in 2018/2019. Training the IR staff to take on maintenance proceeded in 2020/2021, whence roll out is ongoing. Ongoing work includes addition of new features and system refinements.

The system in operation

The situational awareness relies on a continual data flow between trains and the trackside. The train-borne equipment continually sends data messages to the trackside stations which give train identity, speed, direction, the track upon which the train is travelling, and location. This information is achieved by an onboard vital computer module that connects to: i) an onboard

odometer to measure position and distance travelled which is periodically reset as the train passes over the RFID tags; ii) an electronic input from the speedometer; iii) the time data derived from the GPS satellite information that also acts as a time synchroniser; iv) an interface to the train braking system; v) a driver’s screen interface; vi) a power supply unit; and vii) an event recorder. All of this is consolidated and sent to the control stations over a UHF radio system. In addition, the data is transmitted via the GSM radio to a Network Management System that logs all messages including all input functions, train movements, any incidents of forced braking, and every fault message. From these logs, SMS messages are sent to fault teams. At the signalling control stations, the KAVACH vital computer equipment processes the input data and interfaces this to the interlocking to produce information on signal

aspects, permitted speeds, any speed restrictions from which a movement authority is sent to the train. The driver is expected to obey the information given. With the continual interchange of data, including speed and position information, should the train not comply with the information displayed then automatic alerts and braking will take place until the train progression is commensurate with the instructions generated. It must be remembered that the instructions are there to complement the lineside signals, which the driver should be obeying as if the KAVACH system was not installed. It is not the intention at this stage for signals to be removed.

Equipment, safety and reliability

Indian Railways are keen to stress that the KAVACH system conforms to CENELEC standards. These are EN 50126:1999, covering specification and demonstration of RAMS; EN 50128:2011, relating to software for railway control and protection systems; EN 50129:2003, concerning safety related electronic systems for signalling; and EN 50159:2010, covering safety related communication in transmission systems.

In addition, the KAVACH system complies with the SIL 4 standards normally associated with the EU.

The track mounted RFID tags can be used for additional purposes in addition to distance travelled and include a signal approach tag, level crossing approach, and KAVACH exit tag. Different tags are used on adjacent lines to avoid cross reading.

Retrofitting the traction units with KAVACH equipment is a challenge as it is on many other railways. Finding sufficient space and making the locomotives available for the work to be carried out, especially as many different types exist, requires the cooperation of all operating and engineering departments.

Remote interface units are positioned at level crossings, intermediate block locations, and automatic signals which are connected via a ring based transmission link back to the relevant KAVACH station units. The UHF radio network is designed using different time slots within five nationwide channels which are allocated dynamically at the station equipment. The trains will only respond to their assigned time slots which are synchronised by the GPS time reference signal. In an emergency, the time slot can be overridden if an urgent message is required to be sent. Changeover between channels is achieved automatically at a defined location between the controlling stations.

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

Reliability numbers are impressive: The station equipment achieves 60,000 hours between failures, and the train equipment is slightly less at 40,000 hours. An overall availability of 99.9% is achieved. The vital computer equipment, the fixed and remote interface units, the power supply units, and the communication modules are all duplicated.

An interesting facility which adds to the ATP system is the automatic calculation of train length. This is achieved by having time stamps for the pick and drop of track circuits, which, together with train speed, enables the calculation to be made. It is accurate enough for ATP but would need some refinement if ever used for ATO.

Comparisons

On reading all of this it would be easy to ask why, if the Indian system performs similarly to ETCS, Indian Railways did not use this? It is a fair question but there are logical answers. The first and most fundamental response is that KAVACH is intended as an overlay to the existing signalling regardless of the type of signalling installed. Train operation will continue whether or not the ATP system is there to support it. As indicated earlier, KAVACH is much cheaper,

thus improving the business case for investment. Being piecemeal, it is also much easier to install and commission since it can be introduced on sections of line that are being upgraded without the whole route having to be commissioned.

There are also technical differences:

ETCS

KAVACH

Requires a centralised track side architecture Has a distributed track side architecture

Collision detection via train-to-train communication is not possible as there is no absolute location usage

The Eurobalise enables odometer correction, but these are expensive and large in size

With absolute location as a feature, train to train communication is possible

Similarly, the RFID tags enable odometer correction but the tags are much cheaper and smaller

Signal displays on the driver’s DMI are not provided Signal aspects are shown on the DMI

ETCS is facilitated through the GSM-R radio, likely to be replaced by multiple frequency bands with forthcoming adoption of 5G as part of FRMCS

Interoperability is a requirement to facilitate cross border working between adjacent countries

System uses frequencies in the 406-470MHz UHF band with five duplex frequency channels allocated to the railways

India is big enough not to require interoperability with adjacent states although the equipment procured from different suppliers must be compatible

Deployment and the future

To date, KAVACH has been installed on 1,365km of route and 131 traction units have been equipped. Contracts are let for a further 2200 route kilometres and the equipping of 580 locomotives.

Development is underway to interface KAVACH with electronic interlockings, to integrate the system into traffic management systems, and

to consider how the system will work with a new railway radio network that will utilise LTE standards.

The Indian Railway’s engineers are to be congratulated on producing a pragmatic and cost effective technology that will be part of the plans for greater capacity and enhanced speeds on its rail network. The old adage ‘where there is a will there is a way’ must truly apply to this project.

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

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

1923

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

Four Lines Modernisation project Progress with the

The re-signalling of the London Underground sub surface routes embracing the Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City, Circle, and District lines is well underway. Collectively known as the Four Lines Modernisation (4LM) project, it is the biggest re-signalling project ever undertaken on the Underground network.

Rail Engineer has reported on the project in the past, first in October 2015 when we gave an overview of the project, and second in January 2018 after a visit to the new Hammersmith control centre and when training of staff had begun. In the five years since then, much of the 4LM project is now in daily use but some of the more difficult sections of line, where tracks are shared with Network Rail and other Underground lines, have still to be commissioned.

A recent talk given to the IRSE London & SE section, by Richard Kirby from Thales Ground Transportation Systems and Sam Etchell from London Underground (LU), explained the progress made and the work still to be completed.

A project overview

Whilst described here as a re-signalling project, 4LM is much more than that. After two initial attempts with supply contracts that had to be aborted for various reasons, a design, build, install, test and commission contract was let to Thales in July 2015 for a value of £760 million. This would be based on the company’s Seltrac system that had been successfully deployed first in Vancouver, then other places around the world, and on the LU Jubilee and Northern lines plus the Docklands Light Railway.

Most of these used a trackbased inductive loop system to give positional and command information but the latest variant of the product is now

radio based, thus eliminating the need to install wires between the running rails. The 4LM project is using this radio technology so it has differences compared to the other LU lines.

Seltrac comes under the Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) banner and, as well as replacing the existing signalling, it also includes a ‘hands off’ control system with the timetable being used to launch and run trains. For this project, LU has adopted the GOA2 standard (Grade of Operation) whereby trains are automatically driven but with a driver retained in the front cab to start train movement and undertake door control.

The system comes with moving block technology to close up headways when congestion occurs. 4LM has a requirement to handle 32 trains per hour (tph) in the busiest central London sections, amounting to one train every 110 seconds.

CBTC yields many advantages, as follows:

» Optimum operational performance;

» Continuous monitoring and control;

» Automatic Train Supervision (ATS) for the correct routing of trains;

» Makes full use of train performance giving higher speeds with increased acceleration and braking;

» Automatic Train Protection (ATP) to ensure trains do not collide;

» Automatic Train Operation (ATO);

» Full speed protected manual driving.

The extent of the project can be seen in the accompanying diagram which in route mileage terms is nearly half the LU network.

Contract and technical content

The contractual structure within Thales is split between its offices in Canada and the UK. Canada is the design and software hub, and where the various Seltrac systems originate for provision across the world. Thales in the UK is responsible for the interface circuitry, the radio network deployment, all the mechanical engineering aspects, as well as the installation, testing, and commissioning activities.

LU technical staff take on responsibility for system integration with respect to the external interfaces and the training of operators, drivers, engineering staff, and maintainers. LU engineers attend all the test sessions and sort out any abnormalities / problems.

The system architecture is made up of:

» The CBTC system command and management control located at the Hammersmith control centre;

» Vehicle control centres, of which there are 13, that calculate the target running points and times for each train;

» Station controllers that command the devices in the specific areas including axle count evaluation;

» Vehicle on board controllers (VOBCs) that control the train’s systems including propulsion, braking and doors;

» Track transponders positioned at either 25, 50, or 75 metres apart depending on the more accurate positioning required when approaching stations, needing 13,000 for the entire project;

» Radio aerials positioned 200 metres apart giving 1450 radio access points;

» Cabling to connect all of this together, amounting to

5,400 km of different cable types to create a virtual private network (VPN) for communication to the radio access points and all other locations.

System operation, interaction, and integration

To commence a train journey, the driver enters an identity and the train number, after which the command centre automatically initiates the data to be sent to the train containing the route and details for the journey, including the exit from depot tracks. This command message is encrypted and sent via the VPN and the wireless access points. The train receives the message, together with the target point to drive to, and commences the automatic drive via the on-board equipment. Sensor tracking then commences with speed, acceleration, and position being tracked to provide a closed loop control situation. The real-time details of the train movement are displayed to the control operator via the train control monitoring system. To slow down or stop at the target point, both friction and dynamic brakes work together to deliver a load-compensated brake command.

Adhesion control in areas of leaf fall, gradients or wet conditions is needed to ensure

the train systems and the CBTC commands work together. Finally, accurate positioning is required to bring the train to a halt within ± 50cm of the stopping point, although ± 1 metre is the safety requirement. Once this is verified, the doors are allowed to open. However, if the train is outside of this tolerance, the doors will not open.

Project roll out

A project of this magnitude could never be commissioned in a single stage. In all, there are to be 14 stages of migration of which eight have been commissioned. The first was, in effect, a test stage from Hammersmith to Latimer Road, a short distance on the Hammersmith & City Line. Not only was this close to the new control centre, it also included the Hammersmith stabling sidings and was not one of the busiest sections. Reversion to the original signalling could be enabled should problems arise. It showed up some of the integration challenges between the S Stock trains manufactured by Bombardier in Derby and the signalling as supplied by Thales. Problems included geographic, physical, and sitebased constraints. The stopping command when approaching buffer stops needed improved software to get closer to the buffer stops.

Stage one included extending the system to Paddington once resolutions to these problems were found, and this was combined with stage two from Paddington and Finchley Road to Euston Square thus taking in the junctions at Edgware Road and Baker Street. With growing confidence, the next stage was from Euston Square to Monument and Stepney Green, embracing the Aldgate area triangle.

Stage four extended from Monument to Sloane Square, being relatively straightforward with stage five continuing on from Sloane Square to Barons Court, Fulham Broadway, Olympia, and back up to Paddington. This completed the Circle Line and the complex junctions at Earls Court. It also represented the busiest sections in central London. Stages six and seven extended the District Line eastwards from Stepney Green to Becontree and from Becontree to Upminster.

The remaining stages have still to be commissioned and represent the most difficult as these are where the 4LM trains share tracks with either other LU lines or with tracks shared with Network Rail and other TOC operations. A particularly difficult stage is extending northwards on the Metropolitan Line from Finchley Road to Preston Road, and from there

to West Harrow and Moor Park. The line runs in parallel to the Jubilee Line which is also equipped with the Seltrac system so there must be no mutual interference between the two systems.

Problems encountered

The big challenge will be incorporating Neasden depot into the system as this accommodates both Met and Jubilee Line trains. The depot will have three different signalling systems, the earlier Jubilee Line Seltrac, a plc-based interlocking machine for the depot which has linkage to the Jubilee Line system and, still to come, the 4LM Seltrac. The plan is to replace the interlocking with CBTC which then has to partly control the Jubilee Line as well as the depot. Getting rolling stock in and out of the depot under automatic control will be a challenge.

Northwards from Harrow on the Hill, the Metropolitan Line shares tracks with the Chiltern Railways service as far as Amersham. The sections from Moor Park to Watford and from Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham involve only Metropolitan Line trains but on the shared section an arrangement is designed to maintain moving block operation and ATO for Metropolitan Line trains.

Conventional three-aspect signalling is provided for Chiltern services, but the signal posts will have the addition of a blue light. If the signal is showing red and a Metropolitan Line train is approaching, the blue aspect will be lit and the red light extinguished, thus allowing Met trains to proceed under CBTC and ATO conditions. If a yellow or green aspect is being displayed for other trains, then the blue light is not lit. The system will know what type of train is where on the network. Trip cocks will be retained for both Met trains and those of other operators, mainly for the migration stages but also for operation in de-scoped areas.

Similarly, on the section from West Harrow to Uxbridge, Metropolitan Line trains to Uxbridge share tracks with the Piccadilly line from Rayners Lane. The same signalling arrangement is planned with a blue light aspect provided for Metropolitan Line services. This section may be delayed since, with the recently announced modernisation of the Piccadilly Line, a change may result when the Piccadilly Line is also equipped with a CBTC system.

For the District Line going westward from Barons Court and southwards from Fulham Broadway, it has been decided to de-scope the project. CBTC operation will cease at Stamford Brook and East Putney stations where the driver will change over to manual operation. Thus, the lines to Wimbledon, Richmond, and Ealing Broadway will remain with the existing signalling and trip cocks. The original intention of providing an overlay system to provide ATO has been viewed as unjustifiable at the present time in view of the lower traffic density and the complications arising from joint running with other operators.

The timescale for these further stages is yet to be determined. The Chiltern Railway section has some significant gradients and is in the leafy suburbs, so adhesion control will be all important particularly in the autumn. Real-time weather forecasts will be regularly available and used to adjust the trains’ performance software so as to have less acceleration and reduced braking.

Engineering trains and yellow plant

Clearly, periodic maintenance and renewals will be needed on the various routes, many involving the use of on track machines. These vary in type and include tampers, adhesion sanders, track grinders, battery locomotives hauling wagons,

and suchlike. All must be accommodated within the control system which presents some different challenges.

Although axle counters are used as a back up to the normal operation of the control system, and although the data for every train is contained within the VOBC identity, they do confirm whether the passenger trains are seven or eight-car formation. This is less easy for engineering plant as these are of varying length and it is not easy to know where the back of the train is. To resolve this, all engineering trains will have a vehicle equipped with a VOBC at both ends with the 4LM software enhanced to recognise a rear end reported position. There are also reliability issues and how to deal with extended times in section.

Cost, statistics, and project summary

As indicated, the 4LM project in its entirety is a huge project. The total cost is around £5.4 billion, with that including the building and introduction of the new S Stock trains which have been in service for some years, working to the old signalling system. Lots of civil works including the building of equipment rooms have been necessary, plus some track layout enhancements. There are 137 trains of seven-car formation and 59 trains with eight cars. The latter used on the Metropolitan Line.

Altogether, there are 1429 vehicles allowing for spares. The engineering fleet amounts to 33 vehicles.

The CBTC element is costing £880 million, roughly a sixth of the total project cost. Not all of this has been spent. The trains had to be retrofitted once the CBTC programme began and this itself represented a logistics challenge. In the central area, the system is capable of having a train arrive at platforms every 110 seconds although, as yet, the timetable is not yet geared up for this frequency. This is a marked improvement compared to the previous service. Overall end-to-end journey times are improved by 5%.

It has taken a team effort to get this far with many complexities having to be resolved along the way. Migrations with the connection to other control systems, roll out and the release of new software to trains, assurance across the work streams including safety, getting user acceptance, and project management are just some of them. The ‘One Team - Shared Office’ ethos has enabled an optimum team effort. Although the project has not met its original timescale, the benefits of the commissioned sections are there to be seen.

Rail Engineer will track the introduction of CBTC to the remaining sections of route. Watch this space.

Testing modern signalling systems

Testing new and modified signalling systems has always been vitally important to ensure that they work safely at the time of commissioning. Some signalling testing processes have changed little since safety logic started to be implemented by software and processors, rather than by relays. Signalling systems are also becoming more complicated, interconnected and software controlled. So how can signalling engineers ensure that modern software processor-based signalling is tested correctly? This was the subject of a presidential paper, presented to the IRSE in March by Robin Lee of Park Signalling. Robin had been assisted with the preparation of the paper by the IRSE International Technical Committee.

Robin began by explaining that signalling communicationbased control systems, such as ETCS Level 2, will reduce the number of trackside assets such as signals. Functionality is shifting away from the trackside onto trains. On-board systems, often from different suppliers, interface with trackside equipment for movement authorities, and such systems are now connected by IP communications and radio. Another change, at least for European railways, is interoperability. More trains running across borders and the separation of the railway infrastructure managers, operators, and vehicle owners, together with phased procurement, increase the number of on-board systems that need to interface with each other. All this adds to the number of equipment types that need testing.

The social and political environment is also changing. Railways are recovering fast from Covid-19 and becoming busy again, and it’s not easy to close railways to renew, test, and commission new systems. Cost savings also need to be made to signalling without degrading safety. There is also a need to increase personal safety by minimising lineside working.

Testing today

Today, the testing of signalling is mainly based on independent inspection and functional testing at a number of levelsfrom single sub-systems to full final configuration testing. A significant amount of this occurs off-site prior to the integration of the whole system, with designs and application data reviewed and individual subsystems tested independently. Items are then installed and connected, and the system

inspected and tested as a whole before it is validated by ‘principles testing’. Testing and inspection evidence is essential for safety case compliance and for the system to be signed into use.

Unfortunately, certain hazards can never be addressed by off-site testing, such as proving that a point machine has been installed and wired up correctly in the right location. Care must be taken to properly test any connections made on-site to ensure the off-site testing is still valid for the final system. Pre-formed connectors can

PAUL DARLINGTON

help, but blockades will always be required for on-site system testing.

Robin explained that, for over 30 years, electronic interlocking data has been tested off-site by simulating the trackside environment. Routes can be set and results seen on a real or mimic panel, and test harnesses can be used to simulate trackside equipment states. Other interfaces, such as the operator interface and maintainers terminal can also be tested without disrupting the railway.

Test coverage

It was explained that not all signalling systems can be fully tested and not all combinations of inputs and internal states can be covered, and it is only possible to fully test simple logic where a limited number of inputs, each with only a limited number of states, exist. For example, a relay only has two states (energised and de-energised) dependant on one input, which can be tested. But there is a third state where the contacts are open circuit whilst the relay transitions and it could be subject to unexpected voltages.

Assumptions are similarly made with computer-based interlocking hardware and software. Complex software quickly causes the number of

combinations of inputs and internal states to multiply, making it difficult to test all of the combinations. Just 30 train detection inputs with two states could result in over a billion test cases. Therefore, assumptions have to be made that certain inputs and internal states do not affect functions where they are not intended to be related. Cab-based technologies such as ETCS make this problem worse. Trains report their position within 0.1 metres or 1 metre, which the Radio Block Centre (RBC) may be expected to respond to with a large number of possible movement authorities and other data. These cannot all be tested. ETCS can also apply temporary speed restrictions, further increasing the combinations of messages that could be sent to trains.

When compared to reading a single signal aspect, it is also harder to manually evaluate if the movement authority information is correct.

When alterations are made to an interlocking, it is considered acceptable to only perform testing on the related functions, on the basis that the functionality of everything else will not be affected. However, when testing very complex systems, the risk of testing only related functions will also increase.

singular components (say a relay) up to the full signalling system and should be traceable

Having explained the problems,

it with ‘proof’ that certain requirements have been met. This is particularly suited for proving simple rules such as “points shall not move if the dead-locking train detection section is occupied”, to full suites of signalling principles. However, this still cannot prove the whole system is safe, as use of the proof in the real world relies on assumptions and the specification itself being correct. For example,

Robin and the ITC

formal methods cannot prove that point detection contacts are attached to the intended point or that a train detection boundary is not unexpectantly foul of another line. ‘Formal methods’ is a tool and not the complete answer.

Installing a new system in parallel or ‘on top of’ the existing signalling system has been used for some projects, and Robin recommended reading about a Hong Kong project described in January 2020’s IRSE News. This can allow the new signalling system to be tested and allow confidence in the reliability of the new system to be gained gradually during possessions

outside of normal operating hours. This method is easier if the new system is cab-based with new axle counter-based train detection systems and avoids new signals having to be covered/ uncovered at the beginning/end of each testing stage.

New train detection systems can be permanently active if they do not interfere with the old system. Points and level crossings, however, are likely to require manual or automatic switch over between the new and old systems, which is not easy and takes time, resource and is expensive. The benefits have to be balanced against the

can reduce testing said Robin, with different features of the interfaces standardised. These include the protocol, physical interface, functionality and/or application rules of the interface. The good news for the future is that some of this should be addressed in EULYNX (a European 14 Infrastructure Manager initiative to standardise interfaces and elements of the signalling system) and ETCS specifications, which should reduce bespoke solutions and increase the re-usability of testing.

EULYNX specifies the data interface for interlocking-tointerlocking communications and standardisation should allow testing functionality to be reused, and it should also be possible to easily upgrade and test one side of the interface without affecting the other side.

expense of testers and other staff on site over many weeks, as well as the cost of setting up and giving back multiple possessions, rather than a single possession. New hazards can also be introduced with combinations of system states, interfaces, and human confusion whilst the systems co-exist. New designs of equipment could perhaps be designed to allow for easier switching between old and new control systems, Robin suggested.

Alternatively, in metro systems there are examples of shadowrunning Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) systems, while the existing system continues to control movements and maintain safety until the new CBTC system have been proven.

Standardised interfaces, boundaries

Standardisation of interfaces between the interlocking and other boundaries, such as other interlockings, RBC, and fringes,

Remote ‘on-site’ and train testing

Traditional trackside testing involves testers walking through the installation. However, the availability of trainborne video/data collection systems and less trackside assets with cab-based signalling systems now allows more testing to be carried out remotely and/or from the train. If data is recorded from a test train during a possession, it does not necessarily have to be analysed there and then. It could be done anytime and anywhere. Video/train data could confirm the correct location of trackside items such as balises, and the correlation of point positions could be confirmed by analysing video recordings, possibly automatically suggested Robin. Likewise, Robin asked, could axle-counter system configuration data and head installations be verified by service/test train movements and position reports by forward facing videos?

Fuzz testing

Fuzz testing is an automated software testing method that injects invalid, malformed, or unexpected inputs into a system to reveal software defects and vulnerabilities and can be applied at software component and application levels.

It has become a popular method of testing various software systems, including regular web services, apps, and commercial desktop software. Fuzz testing focuses on identifying reliability/stability issues rather than demonstrating correct functionality. Its main advantage is that commercial off the shelf software can perform such testing without the user needing to write any bespoke tests.

Robin asked if fuzz testing could be used to test signalling application data. Inputs (signaller actions) could be commanded randomly, simulated trains could react in random but legal ways, and defined rules could be monitored (for example points do not move under a train or two-trains cannot approach head-to-head, preventing either from continuing). Could machine learning improve such testing, by learning from human testers?

Digital twins

With testing railway signalling, a digital twin could be a virtual model. Various tools such as simulation, software in the loop, full interface protocols/ latency simulation, and real hardware in the loop, could increase the realism of a digital twin test setup. This could be achieved by just using the schematic layout and asset information (such as control tables) available. Links to Building Information Modelling (BIM) could also help.

This could simulate a number of signalling systems covering a particular area of railway where the simulated systems replicate a significant proportion of their functionality, but do not consist of the ‘real’ software. A comprehensive digital twin for testing would consist of all connected systems, utilising the same software as is in use in the real world, with the ability to run on the same hardware (a physical twin).

Digital twins are normally maintained throughout the whole life of the real twin, and if the digital twin is kept up to date it is much more likely to help integrate and re-test the full system as it is upgraded over the life of the signalling system.

The EUYLNX initiative is aimed at opening up the signalling market and integrating different products from different suppliers. Therefore, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) is best placed to own the digital twin and this will limit suppliers being able to increase ‘supplier lock-in’. Contractual arrangements should ensure suppliers are required to provide suitable digital or physical twin components for any systems they supply.

There are situations where suppliers have provided twins of their products for their customer’s use or shared usage by the supplier and customer. Suppliers must also be required to support these by keeping the twin representative of the real system and to provide technical support. The supplier should be encouraged to make use of the wider digital twin to perform its own integration testing in addition to the IM’s own activities. As signalling assets can last for decades it is important that long term contractual arrangements are established at the beginning of a scheme.

Standardisation makes it easier to establish and operate a test environment based on a digital twin. Standardised IP based systems allow the test harness to inspect, check for expected and unexpected messages, and inject additional messages into the interface without requiring supplier specific knowledge. This also may allow more tests to be re-used, or at least easily automatically generated for signalling applications from different suppliers.

To manage complexity, the test infrastructure may require standardisation, for example the interfaces between the systems under test and the test software, and to eliminate the manual steps required to set up, run the tests, and analyse the results.

Unfortunately, not everything can be tested using a digital twin. For example, it cannot easily check that the equipment/configuration has been installed in the right location. It cannot test radio coverage, nor that the digital map of

the layout (and its gradients and other data) is correct. However, digital twins may be able to support the majority of the testing of a signalling system throughout its life and digital twin technology is likely to improve over time.

Case studies

Robin and the ITC have looked at case studies of schemes around the world where some of these solutions have already been applied. These include Singapore’s North-South and East West Lines (NSEWL) which has recently been re-signalled from a track-coded automatic train control system to modern moving-block CBTC system.

The supplier provided the trackside and onboard signalling system, including equipping new trains and retrofitting existing rolling stock and provided a dedicated CBTC simulation facility. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), the owner of the metro system, now requires simulation labs, or digital twins, to be provided for all new lines. The NSEWL has had such a testing facility since 2018, consisting of real signalling hardware, including the trackside and onboard equipment.

It is used by the supplier, LTA, and the Operator SMRT to test operational scenarios, for stress testing, system validation, and to investigate software patches. It has also been used for training, timetable testing and testing of passenger information systems.

Bane NOR, the Norwegian IM, is renewing its whole network with ETCS Level 2 based signalling. A single interlocking/RBC/trackside

supplier, and a single Traffic Management System (TMS) supplier are to be used to minimise complexity and ensure standardised equipment is used. This will even result in a single point machine and axle counter type for the whole country.

Campus Nyland is Bane NOR’s test and training lab which is used by suppliers and their own testers. They have found the lab to be very valuable. It allows testing of all parts of the system: interlocking, RBC, traffic management, communications network, GSM-R, object controllers, and real point machines and points. The lab was even adapted to allow remote operation during Covid-19.

Conclusion

Robin outlined the ways in which testing has changed and could continue to evolve, and encouragingly the case studies discussed are already applying some of the solutions explained by Robin and give hope for the future. Automatic repeatable tests have been found to be achievable and highly valuable in testing new systems. Infrastructure managers will need to assess the benefits and cost of digital twins and to contractually require suppliers to support and contribute to a digital twin throughout the life of the asset.

There are likely to be other testing methods emerging and it’s an area where signalling can learn from other industries with far larger R&D resources than rail. It will be interesting to see what future techniques are developed and used for testing safety critical software signalling systems.

Innovation

Safety

Efficiency

Health and wellbeing

Emerging technologies

Research Data insights

Sustainability Standards

RSSB

We’re with you every step of the way

Leading and facilitating continuous improvement for rail

Twenty years ago this month, the Rail Safety and Standards Board was born. RSSB was created after the Ladbroke Grove crash, as a direct recommendation of the Cullen inquiry.

For two decades, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the rail industry to make the network safer, more efficient and more sustainable. Now our materials and insights form a dynamic, impartial link between innovation, standards and safety. We close knowledge gaps, ensure new technology can be used safely and efficiently, and help codify and share best practice.

For more about our plans for the future, visit rssb.co.uk/RSSBat20

NETWORK RAIL’S introduction of new technology

DAVID SHIRRES

In April 2022, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) published its Railway Innovation Strategy. This highlighted that the industry could, and should, be innovating faster, better, and sooner. It noted that innovations are often stalled as railway innovation is complex, difficult, fraught with challenges, and undersupported. Hence the supply chain, which is keen to build an even better railway, can find itself stifled from innovating.

RIA’s Railway Innovation Strategy is available here:

Furthermore, individual teams were making decisions which appeared perfectly reasonable in isolation. Yet despite this there were significant difficulties in adopting ‘new’ technology.

The report considered new technology to include all forms of software, tools, or materials which are different to that used previously. This included those proven in other industries but new for a particular team in Network Rail. Hence, this study was not concerned with research which involved exploring new, plausible ideas to determine whether they work in practice. The technologies considered were those that Network Rail felt to be workable and had a business case. Several years and large sums of money had been invested on their introduction. All the case studies concerned technologies that had been successfully used in other industries for many years.

In the same month, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) published its report titled Targeted Assurance Case Studies – Targeted Assurance Review, which focused on the introduction of new technology within Network Rail. The report found that there were reasonable processes for each team, competent people and a motivation to improve.

The study team interviewed 50 people across 25 different teams in Network Rail and the supply chain on the introduction of new plant, materials, and software, particularly in the later stages with evidence collected to support statements made. Hence this investigation concentrated on behaviours and decisions, rather than ‘the process’ of development.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Misconceptions and silos

During its interviews, the ORR study team heard four common misconceptions: (i) innovation is always uncertain; (ii) it’s reasonable for some regions not to adopt a new technology; (iii) Network Rail is risk averse so does not innovate as it is safety-focussed; and (iv) there are some people who are ‘blockers.’

Its report explains that, whilst the comment about innovation being uncertain is true for research work, this is not the case for these case studies for which Network Rail had already considered the technology to be workable. Although there are different local challenges, the study team found that there were avoidable reasons why technology was not being adopted in the regions, such as incomplete information or lack of technical support. It was felt that considering safety to be a barrier to innovation showed a

lack of understanding of risk as new technologies should reduce risk through safer working and reduction in asset failures.

The review found no evidence of individuals blocking innovation. Indeed, it found quite the opposite as: “…all of the Network Rail staff interviewed demonstrated that they are not satisfied with the way things are done now and that they are comfortable challenging existing methods. They appeared eager to make changes and they wanted to be associated with projects which bring in new technology.”

It was also found that users generally had a clear justification for not adopting technology whilst developers appeared to be making the right decisions with the technology. It was considered that this was due to “silo thinking” as teams made www.railuk.com

decisions within their own area, independently from each other, even though they are trying to solve the same problem.

Hence, developers can produce the right product, yet users can still refuse to adopt as both teams are basing their decisions on different information. With Network Rail personnel receiving large amounts of information every day, it is easy for information that other teams see as a priority to be missed. Hence, often users and developers were looking at different sets of information. In every case this was considered to be the root cause of poor technology adoption.

other as there appeared to be a language barrier between them.

Though all those interviewed demonstrated their professionalism and competence, it was found that differences with teams had a negative impact. Time pressures on users were also an issue. The study found examples where short-term priorities drove the decision not to adopt technology. It was also found that guidance documents left users to make subjective decisions as they did not promote objective, fact-based decisions. As a result, different teams took different decisions based on the same guidance. An example of this was the Scotland region’s decision not to use EPS (Case Study 2).

(Left) EPS blocks used for platform extensions on the East Grinstead line.

Learning lessons

Although there are lessons learnt from most new technology projects, the ORR study found that communicating these lessons within and beyond individual teams was not effective. Many of the lessons learned reports were extremely detailed and required readers to spend a long time digesting all the information, assessing similarities with their own project, and assessing how to apply recommendations in their slightly different situation.

Decisions and sponsorship

Decisions to adopt new technology require effective communication about the technology with supportive individual behaviour and culture. The ORR team found key transfers of information were often through technical presentations or detailed emails rather than a collaborative discussion to unpick information and agree a shared set of priorities. Although development projects communicated regularly with users, in all the case studies developers and users were frustrated with each

Many users found processes were a significant barrier to adopting new technology. This was a particular issue for software and products that did not affect train operations (i.e., new technologies falling outside the product approval process). A particular issue is changing processes to stop using the old technology. Development teams did not appear to be supporting users in this respect.

The report highlighted the need for new technology projects to have an effective sponsor who understands the processes, incentives and cultures of the different teams involved. It noted that, although Network Rail has a community of dedicated sponsors for construction projects who are trained to understand a project’s commercial, technical, and managerial aspects of a project, there is no equivalent for new technology projects.

Those writing such reports had to determine who needs to read them but, as they cannot know of all other projects, they are unlikely to identify all the right people. Furthermore, as this is a one-time exercise, teams are reliant on word-of-mouth to find out about similar projects in the past. It was considered that Network Rail needed a better system to flag up the past projects of which teams needed to be aware.

The study team also found numerous examples where there had been no detailed review. Also, in some cases there was little attempt to collect user feedback. One such example was the purchase of 80 track measurement trollies to detect cyclic top. Despite more than 60 track maintenance engineers being trained on their use, their adoption was low. Yet user feedback was not compiled, so it was not clear who adopted these trollies and why others refused to adopt them.

Organisational issues

The report notes that for most industrial technology, developers and users are private companies whose relationship is the subject of market research, advertising, and sales. In some cases, companies have spotted a market and used Network Rail’s

data to provide an innovative product to Network Rail and others in the industry. Yet when users and developers are within Network Rail, the ORR team considered that it cannot be assumed that they are working to the same goals. Hence these teams need to internally “advertise” and sell new technologies but do not have the resources or training to do this. This was the case with the little used Mobile Flash Butt Welding machines (Case Study 3) which were described in a Rail Engineer video report.

The report notes many positive examples of new technologies being adopted by Network Rail though these are often due to individuals going beyond the call of duty to overcome obstacles, convince stakeholders through force of will, or work with close friends in the user team. As an example, a supplier involved in the development of PLPR (Case Study 1) felt this was only adopted as they had enthusiastic close contacts in Network Rail.

As users in the regions and developers in route services or the technical authority, conflicting issues that cannot be resolved potentially have to be escalated to the chief executive. This would only be done in exceptional circumstances, one such example being the chief executive’s

instruction to developers to make the development of the earthworks work-bank tool (Case Study 6) a top priority following the fatal Carmont derailment in 2020. At that time users had been awaiting this tool for nine years.

It was considered that the creation of the semi-autonomous regions is likely to have a positive impact on adoption as regional sponsors would more clearly communicate users’ needs to developers and technical details to user teams. Users stated that having a regional sponsor, even if not from their own region, reassured them that users were driving the project. Network Rail also has some horizontal integration between regions with Asset Technical Review meetings being held every four weeks to share technical issues.

Yet, between and within the regions, opinions varied about the region’s role in approving new technology. For example, track maintenance engineers in Scotland rely on the central technical authority to advise when new technologies are approved, whilst Scottish buildings engineers considered themselves authorised to approve new technologies. It was considered that if regions developed new technologies entirely independently from each other, this would have a negative impact on adoption.

Flash Butt Welding Machine.

New Measurement Train (NMT).

PLPR screenshot

PLPR camera mounted underneath NMT.

Recommendations

The ORR report made three recommendations to improve technology adoption, by better supporting communication, culture, and lessons learned at the organisation level. These were that Network Rail should:

1. Establish a mechanism to support communication and resolve conflicts between teams of developers and users, specifically focussed on new technology. This should also include paths for escalating issues effectively, where those issues span different Network Rail groups.

2. Define Network Rail’s culture around technology adoption and effectively disseminate this. This should consider perceptions of other teams as a help, not a barrier; the impact of decisions about

adoption; and the role new technologies play in delivering Network Rail’s objectives

3. Establish a mechanism to encourage teams to learn lessons from each other about good practice and issues on technology projects including improving the recording of lessons and making them more transferable. In particular, the focus should be on when and how teams read the lessons from previous projects.

The ORR’s Technology Adoption Case Studies report is essential reading for anyone who wishes to learn of the difficulties associated with introducing technology. It focusses on behaviours and decisions to understand what actually happens in

the development of new technologies within Network Rail. It paints a picture of competent, committed teams who want to innovate but find it difficult to do so. Its solution is more cross-team support and guidance to aide communication between teams, establish a shared culture, and promote from previous projects.

The full report is available at: www.orr.gov.uk/media/23300

The ORR technology adoption report is available here:

ORR findings from its seven technology adaptation case studies

1. Plain Line Pattern Recognition (PLPR)

This uses train-mounted cameras and image analysis software to spot defects in rails, such as missing clips. It is widely considered to be technically brilliant with undeniable benefits and is considered to be a successful example of technology adoption within Network Rail. Yet its development took over five years before its introduction in 2012. Despite being promoted within Network Rail, less than 60% of the network is using PLPR.

2. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) platforms

For new or extended station platforms, lightweight EPS blocks are quicker to install as they require less heavy equipment and materials and also do not require piled foundations. Their technical approval in 2012 took three years. Adoption was then very slow. By 2019, EPS had been used at 86 stations in all regions except for Scotland which had longterm performance concerns. Although EPS gained Network Rail standard design approval in 2012, it did not have a product acceptance certificate which is only given to technology that affects train operations.

3. Mobile Flash Butt Welding (MFBW)

MFBW machines produce factory-quality welds in 40 minutes, compared with four hours for a lower quality alumino-thermic weld.

Network Rail procured 10 such machines after eight years of development. It was found that their low usage was due to users not seeing their benefits. Moreover, booking these machines nationally for small maintenance jobs was problematic. At the time of the report Network Rail was selling all its 10 MFBW machines.

4. My Work App

This was one of many tools developed by ORBIS (Offering Rail Better Information Services). It allows information about drainage and fencing to be recorded on site and is connected to Network Rail’s asset database. The ORBIS team was disbanded after completion in 2019 with noone left to support users who found the app hard to use with no map. Hence the Northwest & Central Region rejected it and procured a different tool unconnected to the asset database. This created a major data handling problem. Elsewhere, Network Rail’s central Technical Authority trained over 1,300 staff, dealt with negative feedback, and improved the software. They were not trained or resourced to do this.

5. Switch rail wear coating

This factory-applied tungsten carbide coating is intended to minimise switch rail side-wear. It was trialled by technical experts who had no training to run such a research trial. The trial was continually extended over five years to cover six sites. With no clear outcome the trial was terminated without approving the product. This left users still urgently looking for a rail sidewear solution whilst the trial’s results remained unclear.

6. Earthworks work-bank management

In 2011, users requested a software tool to manage their work-bank of hundreds of constantly evolving jobs over a five-year period. After users built an Excel mock-up, it was decided that this should be part of the comprehensive Civils Strategic Asset Management Solution (CSAMS) database for all civil engineering assets. After six years, CSAMS was not ready, so the Excel mock-up was used to sub-optimally plan work during CP5 and CP6. In 2019, the Intelligent Infrastructure (II) programme started working on this tool but was unable to deliver it. During its review, ORR interviewed those concerned to specify user needs. This enabled an interim tool to be developed just in time for CP7.

7. Structures consolidated database tool

In 2011, users requested a tool to consolidate a dozen separate databases (e.g., structure condition, scour risk, traffic loading) so that only one was needed to determine the structures work required. This became part of the stalled CSAMS project. This tool was delivered as the first part of the II programme for which a further 12 components had still to be developed. Users were concerned that they would not see the full benefit until all 13 components were delivered. Hence there was a risk of repeating the mistakes with CSAMS which aimed for a single tool that was too big to deliver.

Growing Rail Freight

DAVID SHIRRES

Speaking at Unlocking Innovation – Rail Freight, an event held by the Railway Industry Association (RIA) in Doncaster on 22 February, Maggie Simpson, chief executive of the Rail Freight Group stressed the need for growing rail freight which benefits the UK economy by £2.5 billion each year.

At the same event Richard Moody, programme director (freight reform) for the Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT), echoed this call and noted that rail freight was a huge private sector success story. Both speakers stressed the need for innovation to improve productivity and sustainability. Richard stressed that GBR would ensure that all research, development, and innovation activity was joined up.

The need to grow rail freight was further highlighted by a recently published Rail Partners report which called for the trebling of rail freight by 2050 as this would remove 20 million HGV journeys each year. In December 2022, GBRTT published its Market Development Plan explaining how its Strategic Freight Unit (SFU) will grow rail freight.

Neither of these documents focused on innovation, although it was clear from

RIA’s Unlocking Innovation event that this is essential if the required rail freight growth is to be achieved. The GBRTT report explains how its Strategic Freight Unit (SFU) will grow rail freight by:

1. Setting an ambitious target.

2. A stable access regime. As GBR will get passenger service revenue, this needs the ORR to ensure that GBR awards freight paths in a non-discriminatory manner.

3. Make best use of existing capacity by running longer, heavier freight trains.

4. Targeted infrastructure investments.

5. Expanding incentives to use rail freight including increasing the Mode Shift Revenue Support scheme and introducing to England the Rail Freight Facilities Grant scheme that currently applies in Scotland and Wales.

Electrification infill

As well as decarbonising freight, electric traction is the only way to run the longer, heavier freight trains that are essential for rail freight growth as electric locomotives have typically twice the power of a diesel locomotive (electric class 92 – 5MW, diesel class 66 – 2.2 MW). Currently, only 10% of British freight trains are electrically hauled despite two-thirds of the core 3,200km rail freight network already being electrified. Hence both Rail Partners and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) consider that electrification infill is essential to significantly increase freight growth. The CILT has produced a map showing how 1,200 route kilometres of electrification would enable about 95% of freight trains to be electrically hauled. This would produce substantial benefits in addition to decarbonising both rail and road freight by modal shift.

The most urgent CILT proposals are the following key infill sections totalling

90km which currently prevent freight trains being electrically hauled over long distances. These are six ‘no regret’ schemes to electrify short lines to enable electric trains to run to the ports of London Gateway, Felixstowe, and Liverpool’s Seaforth as well as the Leeds and Birmingham Freightliner terminals.

The Rail Partners report estimates that, on the basis of carbon and air pollution savings alone, electrification of the London Gateway and Felixstowe will have 30-year cost benefit ratios of respectively 4.75:1 and 4.24:1.

The CILT then prioritises its proposals as: i) Felixstowe to Nuneaton; ii) Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln; iii) Southampton to Bletchley via East West Rail; iv) routes from quarries in the Mendips and Peak District; and v) routes serving the steel industry including Port Talbot, Middlesbrough and Immingham.

Network enhancements

As well as electrification infill schemes, the Rail Partners report identifies the enhancements needed if rail freight is to be trebled by 2050. The report notes the importance of the already committed Transpennine Route Upgrade and HS2, although an alternative to the Golbourne Link is essential if HS2 is to maximise freight benefits.

The report also highlights the need for gauge clearance including Didcot to Cardiff and Wembley to the Channel Tunnel, as well as stressing the strategic importance of the £450 million Ely Area Capacity Enhancement scheme which is currently “indefinitely paused”.

The need for enhanced freight routes was also stressed by Lucy Hudson at the Unlocking Innovation event. Lucy is principal policy

officer, freight and logistics, for Transport for the North (TfN) which recently published its Freight and Logistics strategy. This stressed the importance of getting rail freight across the Pennines to connect the port of Liverpool with the ports of Hull, Grimsby, and Immingham. However, the lack of a W12 gauge cleared route across the Pennines is a particular constraint in this respect.

Lucy also described how TfN was working closely with other sub-national transport bodies to provide joint responses to government, for example on the need for the Ely capacity improvement.

Automatic coupling

Innovation is also needed to grow rail freight, as was clear at the Unlocking Innovation event. Today’s freight wagons have no power or data lines and use the twin-pipe air brake that was introduced on Freightliner trains in 1965. Coupling requires the manual connection of screw couplings and air hoses.

Train despatch requires an examiner to confirm that all hand brakes are released and undertake a brake test to confirm the application and release of brakes.

For these reasons, the European rail freight sector is planning to fully deploy

Intermodal rail freight network.

Digital Automatic Coupling (DAC) by 2030. This would provide train integrity as required by ERTMS level 3 as well as providing wagons with power and data lines to provide the benefits shown in the table.

cover the fitment costs. The report notes that there may be simpler ways of achieving these benefits.

This was the view of Knorr Bremse (KB)’s digital services business development manager, John May who felt

system which requires wagon power generation. This also offers the opportunity to monitor such things as distribution and parking brake status, and get data off the wagon so that operators can be made aware of potential problems before they get worse.

Remote condition monitoring

Instrumentel is part of the Unipart group specialising in extracting data from extreme environments. As an example, its sales director, Sam Bussey explained how the company used inductively coupled miniature electronic operating at very high temperatures to take a million samples per second to perfect the design of a Formula one engine.

RSSB report T1264 estimates that fitting DAC and the equipment to provide all the enabled benefits to all the required 13,617 freight wagons by 2030 would cost £600 million. It concludes that autocoupling offers little benefit as ‘block trains’ are the norm in the UK and that whilst DAC offers derailment mitigation, its benefits do not

there were opportunities for self-powered solutions such as KB’s derailment detection system which is soon to be introduced in the UK. This consists of an emergency brake valve that operates when an indicator registers significant increases in vertical acceleration. He advised that KB was also developing a wagon wheel slide protection

In the rail sector, Instrumentel is working with Porterbrook and Cross Country to monitor engine and power trains and is collecting data from 600 vehicles every second over routes totalling 10,000km. It has used machine learning to develop a system to predict failures and reduce maintenance by eliminating tests as components are monitored in real time. This also predicts and prevents in-service failures.

The company’s Paradigm insight web portal enables operators to understand their asset performance with easily accessible dashboards that notify any faults. This offers actionable data from assets operating in difficult-toaccess environments. Freight wagons without electrical power are clearly such an environment.

Self-powered wagons

The radical solution of self-powered wagons was presented by Simon Evans, Wabtec’s group innovations director, and Tim Danvers, Atkins’ business development director.

Table of enabled benefits provided by digital couplers.

Typical digital coupler.

The proposition is the fitment of a traction motor and battery to each wagon to recover braking energy so that when a train with 32 wagons accelerates, its train’s peak power could be 10MW for 10 minutes, compared with 2.4MW from its diesel locomotive. This would also offer on-board wagon power enabled benefits such as wheel slide prevention and electro pneumatic braking. There would be less performance benefits for more powerful electric freight trains which have regenerative braking, albeit only for the locomotive. However, this would offer last mile operation. It is anticipated that a prototype self-powered will be trialled by the end of 2024. The motor for this wagon would be similar to that Wabtec is developing for fitment to passenger diesel multiple units for which they were awarded a £59,450 grant by Innovate UK in November.

Doing things differently

Innovation does not necessarily require new technologies. New ideas and processes also offer significant benefits. In her presentation, DB Cargo’s chief transformation and digitalisation officer, Marie Hill, advised that we need to get people to think about things differently, offer suggestions, and challenge the way we do things. She noted that “we never have all

the answers, and we are never the first to face the problem.” Hence it is important to learn from others, especially those who are world-class for a particular process.

GB RailFreight’s business development manager, Tim Hartley, also stressed the need to focus on people. As an example, he explained the company’s social value pilot programme that mentors 15-year-olds in deprived areas to attract new and diverse talent. He also described how the provision of body worn cameras had proved to be a worthwhile initiative. Following incidents these had proved that examiners were doing their job properly.

Tim also explained how the company’s new Peterborough depot will examine wagons

using smart sensors and how visual indications had been provided to show handbrakes were released. He noted that the company’s biggest recent investment was in 30 x Class 99 Co-Co bi-mode locomotives which will be introduced in 2025.

From RSSB, Robert Staunton, research and innovation account manager and Aaron Barrett, lead analyst explained how, through research and its standards role, RSSB was well placed to remove barriers. Specific examples were RSSB’s research into coupling strength to allow heavier freight trains; differential freight train speeds for trains with better braking and aerodynamic research to support an increase in freight train speeds.

Performance benefit of self-powered wagons.

GB RailFreight recently ordered 50 new JNA-X box wagons.

Gauging

As gauge is a significant constraint for container trains, anything that offers a better way of ensuring particular wagon/container combinations can safely operate on specific routes offers huge benefits. This was the view of Ian Johnston, D-Gauge’s head of engineering who considers that new routes can be opened up with much less infrastructure work than conventional gauge clearance.

Ian explained how wagons must be complaint with a particular W gauge and Network Rail has to ensure that the infrastructure is compliant with this W gauge.

Ian gave the example of Standedge tunnel on the Transpennine route where there is just 26mm clearance for the W12 gauge. Although this is too tight to run W12 gauge trains, there is 94mm clearance for a TEA-C wagon with a 2.5 metre container. This shows that such trains can now safely run through Standedge tunnel without any infrastructure work despite it not being cleared for W12 gauge.

Ian advised that Network Rail had asked D-gauge to apply this approach to the full Transpennine route. As a result, it was found that the route has 424 structures with W12 gauge infringements, yet infrastructure work is needed at only 277 structures if the requirement is for a worst-case wagon / container scenario (FEA-C wagon, 2915mm high, 2550mm wide container).

Freight logistics

A theme at the Unlocking Innovation event was that rail freight should be considered as part of a logistics chain. Indeed, those present were able to see a freight logistics operation during their visit to the nearby iPort facility, which includes

Its managing director, Steve Freeman, explained iPort Rail received its first train service in September 2018 and now has six trains per day. Commencement of construction for phase two is being considered for 2023, which would increase capacity to 12 trains per day. As an example of the service offered, a container arriving at Immingham port can arrive at iPort’s Amazon warehouse in just over four hours.

Paul Bathgate, business solutions director at iPort Rail, advised that the challenge was to bring transport elements together for road hauliers to shift their operations from long haul to final mile. For them, using rail freight for long haul with a few short HGV journeys per day is more profitable than long haul HGV operations.

For this reason, iPort Rail is working with third party logistics provider, Eco2loco, to fill the space on its trains as typically 25% of the space on its trains is unused. The RAILX container booking system has been developed to do this. This enables customers to instantly book a container on

Gauging using a specific wagon/ combination rather than the W12 gauge offers 70 mm more clearance through Standedge tunnel.

PHOTO: D-GAUGE

The internet-driven parcels delivery market is estimated to be worth £17 billion with five billion packages delivered in the UK each year. Eversholt Rail believes that rail can capture some of this market as their account manager, Sam Gillert explained. In 2019, Eversholt arranged for Wabtec at Doncaster to convert a surplus Class 321 unit to a Swift Express Unit. This was unveiled in July 2021. Shortly afterwards, Eversholt announced that Gemini Rail Services would convert a

These trains could each remove four HGVs from the road as each has four cars which typically have a 44-square metre, 9.45 tonne carrying capacity, though the intention is to increase this to 12 tonnes.

Sam considered that this is a massive opportunity with some big challenges. These include the need for electrified rail access, gaining logistics company commitment, and considering the use of citycentre stations as terminals.

A Network Rail report has assessed the practicality of using its major stations Group for this purpose.

An alternative approach is starting a limited service to demonstrate the feasibility of high-speed rail logistics. This is what Phil Read has done by establishing his company, Varamis Rail, in 2020. In October 2022 the company leased a Class 321 Swift unit from Eversholt and, on 9 January this year, launched its first regular route between Mossend Yard, outside Glasgow, and Birmingham International. This train runs Monday to Friday leaving Mossend at 18:30 to arrive in Birmingham at 23:10. It returns from Birmingham at 00:53 for an arrival in Mossend at 05:43.

Phil advises that his 100mph units fit into passenger services and offer competitive delivery times. He considers that his company’s operation is cost effective with a focus to keep things lean. He hopes to extend the service to East London by the end of the year and eventually offer a service up the East Coast Main Line to provide a circular network.

Better systems

Doing things better needs improved systems of which Rail Engineer is aware of the following:

» DigiRail’s cloud-based advancement system (CBAS). This automates and improves the legacy TOPS system to make it easily understandable and, for the first time, provide historic data from it. This gives freight operators immediate information on their locomotive fleet status in a way that is not possible with the aging TOPS system that was introduced in the late 1960s.

» NR+ developed by the University of Hull’s Logistics Institute. This is an effective freight train route planning tool which digitises various documents (such as Sectional Appendix, Load Books, Library of exceptional freight

RAILX container booking system.

loads (RT3973 forms), and engineering access statements) into a single efficient graphic database. However, unless Network Rail digitises this information at source, updating NR+ will be an unnecessarily costly exercise.

» Without NR+, finding rail freight routes is cumbersome as the required data is in various documents that are not well integrated. This process is dependant on the experience and skills of planners and has long lead-times making it more difficult for the freight industry to compete with a more dynamic road freight industry.

» Railfreight Energy and Emissions Calculator (REEC). Using the data gathered for their NR+ system together with other information such as gradient profiles the University of Hull together with Aether, Carrickarory and University of Derby developed REEC to easily assess the duration, energy consumption and emissions of individual freight train moves. It does so by breaking the route into 10-metre segments to which an algorithm is applied. This is based on theoretical equations which have been adjusted and validated using On Train Monitoring Recorder data from hundreds of journeys.

REEC has been used to assess the benefits of running longer trains, determining the lowest emission route, to compare diesel and electric traction energy use and performance, and assess the impact of speed restrictions. It was used to inform the Rail Partners rail freight report and is regularly used by Freightliner to show customers the benefits of rail freight by sharing emissions for set journeys. Freightliner also considers that REEC can be used to develop specifications for modification and future vehicles.

Achieving rail freight growth

Maximising the use of rail freight is an integral part of the freight delivery logistics chain. Both the Rail Partners and GBRTT reports spell out how this can be done. Significant rail freight growth also requires investment in electrification and other enhancements.

As the RIA event shows, innovation is also needed, though much of the required innovation is doing things differently with the same technology. Managing rail freight using 50-year-old legacy computer systems with critical information that is not digitised cannot be efficient. The current gauging process unnecessarily restricts routes and significantly increases the cost of gauge clearance work.

Each year there are currently 153 billion HGV journeys carrying 178 billion tonnes/km. The threefold increase in rail freight called for by Rail Partners would reduce this by 22% to 128 billion tonnes and save 3.7 million tonnes of CO2e, which is over twice the current rail emissions. This is certainly a prize worth aiming for.

Varamis Rail’s Class 321 at Preston.

PHOTO: GUARD_AMOS

CHARGING AHEAD

iPort Rail is a high-volume inland port close to Doncaster, providing lower carbon logistics solutions for regional, national and international supply chains.

This award-winning, multimodal freight terminal offers extensive daily connectivity to UK ports via the UK rail network, as well as rail connections to/from Europe with on-site customs clearance.

Onward connections, including to warehousing within the iPort logistics hub, also provide a full port to warehouse door service.

Our experienced and highly professional team works closely with customers, from strategic advice to practical support, always focussed on the rapid movement of goods

Visit www.iportuk.com to find out more.

Doncaster

The last in-person Rail Safety Summit was held in 2019, so it was good to once again re-assemble at Loughborough University on 14 March. With accidents and near misses still occurring too frequently, getting safety messages across is as important as ever and with 137 attendees present, many aspects of safety were covered. So, what is being done to improve safety and what are the factors and risks that cause most concern? The morning and afternoon sessions were chaired, respectively, by Colin Wheeler and myself, both retired career railwaymen but having had the distressing experience of staff being killed at the trackside.

Policy, strategy, and direction

It has long been emphasised that safety must be led from the top. In UK terminology, this means the Department for Transport (DfT), the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), and the Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB). The head of the ORR, Ian Prosser, gave a powerful message in a video recording.

Statistics show Britain has one of the safest railways in Europe, he said, but in the totality of rail covering main line, metros, trams, stations and platforms, the number of serious incidents still occurring is a worry. Three new factors to be considered are the post pandemic situation, climate change, and extreme weather events.

Several challenges exist, namely the management of change, organisational structure, attitudes, and use of technology. The industry’s financial situation and current industrial relations are not helping. There are some positive signs, however. For example, supporting people in health and wellbeing, particularly occupational health issues, is now more widespread.

Effective safety validation in the transition to Great British Railways (GBR) must be understood. The need to improve value for money in signalling systems without compromising safety, the prediction and location vulnerability of extreme

weather and the means of worker access to the track, are things where technology has a major part to play.

The management of freight rolling stock is a concern and must be improved. The threat of legal action being taken against individuals and companies following accidents needs to be carefully thought through, with the forthcoming Sandilands tram accident prosecution being a test case. With the premise that nobody sets out to deliberately cause a rail accident, does the legal framework on Health & Safety help people’s mindset when planning and delivering rail engineering and operations?

So, what is the government’s view? James Le Grice, the Head of Safety and Standards at the Department for Transport (DfT), spoke of investment, culture, and regulation - factors which all need to be interlinked with safety. The principal role of government is to ensure that the rail system works and that the regulatory regime and statutory legislation is fit for purpose, he said. Rail is a topic of public concern and questions are often asked at Prime Minister’s question time. Examples of topics recently subject to Acts of Parliament are Regulation of Guided Transport Systems (ROGTS), Interoperability, Private Level Crossing Signage, and the Licensing of Drivers.

Rail Accident reports are scrutinised carefully by the DfT, which gives the necessary focus on industry structure, Brexit, and the continuance of European standards. The result should be a proactive approach to future rail services and recognition of new risks. The Railways Act 2005 requires that the HLOS (High Level Output Statements) must include a safety and security section. Safety must not exist in a silo and must fit with future ambitions for rail, an example being rail freight growth. The government encourages promotion of UK rail expertise abroad, which includes rail safety where the UK record is very good. Standards can be an emotive subject and Ali Chegini, the Director of System Safety and Health at the RSSB remarked on the difficulties of getting rail’s risk focus properly understood. Being an independent body, the RSSB’s influence extends to all in the rail sector –Network Rail, train operating companies (TOCs), freight operating companies (FOCs), metros, trams, and the huge supply chain industry. The aim is to work collaboratively and to bridge knowledge gaps. There is pressure on performance, and technology must offer safety efficiency plus value for money.

Boardroom thinking does not always view safety as a business risk or an opportunity to reduce cost. Safety and performance risks are an insidious mix of stubborn thinking where goals and strategies are unclear. Making the benefits become more obvious is important. The Carmont accident was caused by a linkage of rainfall, project and asset management weaknesses, as well as a misunderstanding of safe operation. The balancing of earthwork weaknesses with speed restrictions, and the maintenance of freight vehicles are the two major concerns. Whilst rail travel is generally viewed as safe, some risks are rising. The transition to GBR must maintain the safety culture. RSSB will keep a close eye on this and the whole industry will be involved.

For all three bodies, there is ongoing concern at the number of accidents and near misses that continue to happen. In the question session, much was made of the data. Can the management of data be improved, as sometimes it seems like a best kept secret? Are we measuring data in the right place and can it be processed in a more intelligent and focussed manner? The collection and interpretation of data should lead to the investigation and use of AI.

Understanding accidents

The Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents of over 20 years ago led to the creation of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) and Andrew Hall, its third chief inspector, started his talk with the slogan ‘Beware! Rarely is not Never’. Whilst Rare is good, how rare is acceptable? A huge effort over 25 years has taken place to make the railways safer, so when accidents happen, they come as a shock.

Rarity means many people have never encountered an accident, he said, and sometimes this leads to ignorance of past recommendations and requirements. The Clapham accident of 1988 led to the IRSE Licensing Scheme as a means of establishing standards of competence amongst technicians, installers, designers, testers, and management in the signalling profession. Yet with all this, two recent events at Cardiff and Waterloo, which ignored the testing requirements, could have been much worse.

Two major accidents have occurred in recent

times – Grayrigg in 2007 and Carmont in 2020 – with many smaller accidents in between. In his 1905 book ‘A Life of Reason’, the writer George Santayana made the quotation ‘Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it’. The RAIB’s reports aim to teach the causes of accidents so that people in all railway disciplines can learn directly from them. Studying the statistics and determining the correct investment criteria is all part of looking into the future. The serious concern is freight containers where load distribution combined with track twist will inevitably lead to derailment - Camden and Duddeston being two examples. If the parameters change but the historic data does not change with it, it will lead to future accidents.

When the norm suggests that accidents do not occur very often, there is little incentive to act. The growth in sending scrap metal to China is an example, with containers hopelessly unbalanced when loaded. Historic behaviour doesn’t predict people’s future actions, and everyone needs to be aware of this.

The Q&A session asked about disseminating rules and standards changes in a fragmented rail structure, where getting the message to staff is difficult. In British Rail (BR) days, there was a clear line of communication right down to technician level. Nowadays, the motivation to get changes introduced is limited and the understanding of rules at ground level is somewhat suspect. In response, accidents do not necessarily lead to a change in the rules. A plea was made for RAIB investigations and their recommendations to be carried out more quickly. Andrew Hall acknowledged this, but stressed that thoroughness and accuracy must be of prime importance.

Safety in Network Rail and London Underground

Infrastructure organisations probably have the greatest exposure to safety risks and must have robust safety processes in place. Rupert Lown, Network Rail’s chief health, safety and wellbeing

officer, explained the company’s safety framework and safety expectations. Accident statistics covering everything from fatalities down to minor slips and trips, showed that incidents occurred every month between 2018 and 2022. Train collisions and accidents, whilst low in number, still revealed incidents in most months. Fatality incidents mean, for some families, a knock on the door to say that a loved one would not be coming home that day. Imagine the impact if that was you?

Under the banner ‘Everyone Home Safe Every Day’, six national elements to improve the statistics have been put in place.

» Establishing a safety culture that is understood by everyone.

» Providing first line assurance to vulnerable staff with health issues.

» Having a leadership capability that understands safety.

» Communications and how to make this effective.

» Life saving rules to be established.

» Separation of people, trains, and machinery.

Each region has to create its own plan which, because of geography, and local engineering and operating conditions, will not necessarily be the same but must have the same outcome. Particular emphasis will be on tackling incidents of trespass and suicide, which show little sign of reducing.

Marion Kelly, Head of Safety, Health & Environment (SHE) at London Underground (LU), gave a similar message. With 1.38 billion journeys every year, and a huge portfolio of infrastructure assets and trains, it is not possible to operate a safe railway without people. Accidents in past years – Moorgate, Clapham, Kings Cross fire, Sandilands tram – resulted in changes being implemented and changed attitudes to accountability.

The Kings Cross fire was the wake up call and revolutionised LU’s attitude to safety. Senior managers did not see passenger safety as part of their job. Internal engineering expertise led to a blinkered self-sufficiency and unwillingness to take advice from outside bodies. Change has happened and will continue. The ambition is that by 2041, no-one will be killed or seriously

injured on TfL networks or services. Factors being worked on are:

» Increased automation and digitising of networks and systems.

» Totally new thinking on culture and behaviour.

» Learning lessons from across the industry.

» Back-to-basics with rules and standards that are easier to understand and implement.

Feedback from all levels will be part of the process but one might question whether this timeframe is too long?

Electrification safety Safety summits in the past have featured specific issues in the various engineering disciplines. Featured this time was electrification infrastructure with Peter Dearman, a career railwayman and an expert on electrification systems, giving a focus on associated safety risks. Fortunately, there is no record of any passengers being killed whilst on a station platform but there are numerous examples of accidents involving track workers. The greatest risk is to staff working on the systems. Contact with 25kV is always

contact with third rails, which are much closer to where trackside tasks are carried out, is life threatening. All work should be with equipment isolated and earthed. Accidents occur because:

» People stray outside of the isolation area.

» A failure to observe residual hazards within the isolation limits.

» Vulnerability of individuals to lapse in attentiveness; the human capacity for vigilance is not infinite.

The procedures for taking isolations are encapsulated in the Electricity at Work regulations and the Permit to Work processes. The opening and securing of switches plus connecting equipment to earth have well known rules but remember - ‘always test before touch’. Is enough done to train people and is there too much confidence in selfbelief assumptions? A review of supervision and surveillance methods is needed. A question on boom-and-bust investment was particularly relevant to electrification as not only does the expertise in the design and build of electrified railways ebb away, but so does the culture of the associated safety. Whilst the issues are primarily engineering, the human factors are equally important.

Human behaviour

How companies look after and support workers was the question asked by John Jebson, the OHSE director at McGinley. The skill shortages in rail and engineering are well known but less obvious are recent national problems. Sixty-six percent of people are extremely worried about finance. Inflation is rampant with the average worker being £5,000 a year worse off. Financial literacy is not taught and 84% are not confident to talk about financial worries. During the pandemic, 54% of workers went to work knowing they had Covid. It all flags up significant mental health issues.

So, what to do about it? There is a need to ensure a fixed earning structure and move away from zero hours contracts. Education and training in financial matters is vital but where will this come from? There is a need to entice people into the rail industry which means a heavy responsibility on employing companies to create a sustainable workforce.

From a transport system perspective, the role is changing, so says Prof Sarah Sharples based at Nottingham University and Chief Scientific Advisor to the DfT. Decarbonisation, vehicle ownership, merging of road and rail (e.g., Very Light Rail) are some of the factors. Humans

are brilliant but fallible; people, artefacts, and systems need to be integrated.

Automation and innovation will be all important, but where does safety fit with this?

» Decarbonisation – limited action will have an impact on human health.

» Security – threats within society are a growing problem, particularly for women.

» Inclusion – higher numbers of disabled people wanting accessible mobility.

» Cost – transport charges, especially rail, are viewed as too high.

» Career change – today’s generation change jobs more frequently. Is safety transferable?

There is too much silo thinking and a whole system view is needed with much more shared practice between transport modes.

A better understanding of human weaknesses is required according to Jules Reed, head of behavioural science at Tended. People unconsciously take mental breaks (or daydream) averaging 70 minutes every day.

People interact and pick up both good and bad habits. For rail, this leads to loss of situational awareness, use of wrong access points, incorrect line identification, marker board irregularities, equipment left on track, all of which can cause rail accidents. Sadly, many past rail fatalities have resulted from workers striving to get work finished or a fault cleared, forgetting their own safe system of work with tragic consequences.

Safety at the coal face

Tracks, trains, and people do not mix. How to carry out lineside work safely was addressed by Nick Millington MBE. Now the route director for Network Rail Wales & Borders, Nick headed up the Safety Task Force project until

January this year. Triggered by the tragedy at Margam in 2019, but mindful of other fatalities involving track workers, the project undertook a focussed investigation into how new work and maintenance tasks are carried out. The statistics do not make easy reading: 11% of planned work over the last 2.5 years was carried out under lookout or locally operated warning systems (LOWS) protection with 70% of near misses occurring under these conditions. Train speed and working in the proximity of switch and crossings are big factors.

The risk shift in trackside working, with lookout warning as a reference, shows that using LOWS is half as safe, having a line blockage is 40 times safer, and having a T3 possession is 200 times safer. Other risks are signaller error and working beyond the planned activities and location. There are 4.3 million maintenance works orders every year. Add to this new work and project tasks, one senses the challenge. Attending to faults with trains disrupted is difficult. Here again, the idea is for technicians and signallers to liaise and agree a time window for rectification. The line(s) will then be blocked and hopefully the fault will be rectified. If this does not happen, the technicians will withdraw and a new time slot in a quieter period will be agreed.

The Safety Task Force output is pushing for no more lookouts, 100% line blockages or train activated warning systems, and 100% compliance with safe working practices. Track Circuit Operating Devices (TCODs) are useful and remotely-controlled TCODs are being introduced. ‘Train on Line’ indicators and remote disconnection devices are being trialled. Keeping the work site safe also means better walkways, good access points, and fencing. Situational awareness is vital.

Line blockages are controversial; peak signaller workloads have to be taken into account and the time of day can be critical. The data on utilisation is improving: 25,000 line blocks are taken every week, an increase from 6% to 40% in recent times. Controller of Site Safety (COSS) and Person in Charge of Works (PICOW) training and certification needs to be overhauled.

Geofencing

Every year, trackside workers are involved in accidents and near-misses, a leading cause of which is a loss of situational awareness. A talk by Leo Scott Smith, CEO of Tended, explained how geofencing is becoming the next evolutionary step in trackside safety.

Last year, Tended launched an innovative solution that combines geospatial technology and behavioural

science to address the loss of situational awareness and help end preventable accidents. Using an online dashboard, users can plot out safe working zones with associated access points to precision. A wearable device assigned to the site then alerts workers in real time if they cross a geofence boundary and leave safe working limits.

The system uses a wellestablished network to achieve unprecedented accuracy within 14mm, and it is very quick to set up and simple to use. Having received product acceptance from Network Rail, it is now being deployed on the UK’s railway infrastructure.

A resounding success

By all accounts this year’s Rail Safety Summit was a resounding success, with attendees praising the presentations delivered and the high-level of debate they generated. Continued efforts to get the safety messages across are vital and the Safety Summit is set to return in 2024.

Thanks

to our sponsors

All aboard for Railtex 2023, calling at Birmingham’s NEC on 9-11 May. Now running for over 25 years, Railtex is the industry’s showcase event bringing together stakeholders and key players including rail operators, vehicle builders, suppliers, policymakers, and planners.

As ever, 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. So far, 50 new companies are among the exhibitors, all serving the future development of the UK railway industry with their products and services.

Railtex 2023

This year’s programme includes keynotes, Q&A sessions, and panel discussions with an incredible line-up of speakers, including leading figures from politics and industry. The conference programme is again sponsored by the Railway Industry Association, and all sessions are free to attend and CPD certified.

The show’s popular OnTrack Display area, sponsored by British Steel, returns to demonstrate tools and equipment in an authentic rail setting, and attendees can expect live demonstrations of new machines and systems and technical in-person discussions.

In addition to all of this, the Careers, Talent, and Skills Hub – hosted by RailwayPeople.com (part of Rail Media) will provide a dedicated networking area for employers, job seekers and those at the start of their journey into the rail industry. The hub will provide a space for visitors and job seekers at any stage of their career to drop by and meet employers from leading organisations in the rail industry. Experts will be on hand to give helpful advice on graduate/apprenticeship

opportunities, CV writing, and general rail career pathway advice.

Attendees, visitors, and rail professionals are encouraged to visit the Careers Hub where they can network with like-minded individuals, and learn from and engage with some of the industry’s leading companies. With public interest in greener and more sustainable travel solutions at an all-time high, Railtex is a fantastic opportunity for industry professionals to discover the latest innovations and learn more about the technologies moving the industry from decarbonisation to digitalisation.

“These are exciting times for the rail industry,” says Olaf Freier, Portfolio Director Transport at RX Global. “The sector will not only continue to benefit from new opportunities, such as the ongoing rail projects from North to South and East to West in the United Kingdom, but also continue to grow amongst the challenges the rail sector has been confronted with.”

For more information, including the latest list of Exhibitors please visit www.railtex.co.uk

Full approval of Rail Safety technology from Bender has enabled more widespread investment in intelligent insulation monitoring of signal power systems in the UK.

The new generation multitier RS4 Rail Signalling Power Monitoring delivers increased sensitivity for first fault location and remote condition monitoring of core-to-earth failures, which accounts for most faults on signal power systems. RS4 helps to reduce maintenance, infrastructure, and service failures, and improves staff safety by minimising trackside intervention or ‘boots on ballast’. Bender’s RS4 technology was developed in collaboration with Network Rail in response to the standard NR/L2/SIGELP/27725 which defines requirements for insulation monitoring and fault location for use on IT Electrical Systems where the nominal system voltage does not exceed 1,000V AC or 1,500V DC.

Increasing intervention time

Network Rail regulation NR/ L3/SIGELP/50001 requires an increase in intervention windows. Faults identified at critical stages (20 kΩ or lower) require immediate intervention within 24 hours. Advanced monitoring and insulation fault location at up to 100kΩ increases intervention time, enabling fault identification within a prescribed six-week window. More importantly, it also offers the option of dealing with the fault over a longer timescale through planned and predictive maintenance. Bender systems has been the principal method of tracking and locating faults on the UK rail signalling power network for two decades. However, less critical emerging faults at lower intervention/insulation limits have been difficult to track and pinpoint. The new generation multi-tier RS4 Rail Signalling

Power Monitoring system offers increased sensitivity for first fault location and remote condition monitoring of coreto-earth failures, which account for most faults on signalling power systems. Network Rail demands maximum visibility to assess the health and condition of its power systems to support signals, points, and communications infrastructure. Manual cable testing on a five-year cycle continues to be a requirement, but RS4 is a key step forward in enabling Network Rail to move from periodic testing to a real-time condition-based approach through continuous monitoring.

Positive response

Tony Edwards, rail business manager for Bender UK commented: “The response from our customers to the Tier 1 and 2 RS4 approval has been very positive. It is being taken on board across the rail network as a straightforward way of upgrading legacy installations to deliver the extra functionality

Multi-tier system insulation monitoring paving the way for widespread upgrades

and sensitive monitoring that is set to be the new base level going forward. It is the area where we expect to see growth from companies carrying out improvements - with fewer new rail developments planned, any future investment is being concentrated on improving existing systems.

“For example, the standard has not yet been reviewed but the future architecture for new Principal Supply Points (PSPs) may be a single transformer for every single feeder. If that is adopted as the new standard, RS4 Tier 2 is the ideal equipment to monitor the systems because the Tier 2 standard is automatically achieved with functional insulation monitoring. Alongside that, routes are already indicating they prefer to upgrade to RS4 Tier 2 as a bare minimum.

Data analysis and trending is also becoming increasingly important and an easy way to access current data is via the cloud using Tier 2 equipment. Bender can enable cloud access as part of its managed service package, which means customers can access data uploaded every 15 minutes from each feeder.”

RS4 Tier 2 system measures insulation resistance and leakage capacitances to individual feeder levels on rail IT electrical systems up to 690V, in addition to delivering the overall system resistance and capacitance provided by the RS4 Tier 3 system.

Comprehensive data readings and information on the status of miles of networked cables enable operators to make a clearer overall assessment of the system condition and plan predictive and preventive maintenance to prevent downtime.

Unique solution

RS4 Tier 2 is the most cost-effective solution for upgrading previous generation Bender rail technology and can be installed with simple mechanical and wiring modifications onsite. Tier 2 compliance is achieved through the incorporation of Bender Type B current transformers (CT) and Bender COM465IP condition monitor to enable complex individual feeder measurements. It is also fully upgradeable to deliver a Tier 1 solution.

Bender also offers a range of support systems and services, including remote condition monitoring designed to integrate seamlessly with future smart infrastructure, and advanced analysis of data collected by Bender and third-party devices. This supports

end users with the identification of warnings and trends to help minimise failures, improve the efficiency of rail network maintenance, enhance safety, and reduce operating costs for the network.

Condition monitoring data from Tier 3 systems is reported back to the Network Rail central system known as RADAR. This is monitored 24/7 by Intelligent Infrastructure technicians who utilise the information to predict an asset failure, providing guidance to front line teams.

RS4 Tier 1 increases the functionality level to provide accurate individual cable section and FSP switchgear level insulation resistances. RS4 is an approved Tier 1 solution that doesn’t require trackside connection to 650V for safer and more cost-effective installation without the need to switch off power. Bender’s Tier 1 solution is capable of separately reporting on the insulation status and performance of the switchgear and cable.

This unique solution enables unobtrusive working with dual end fed reconfigurable systems, so that in the reconfigured state, monitoring can be changed to match the new systems without trackside intervention.

Atco Trade EOOD’s Rope Safety Device (RSD) is an innovative concept for platform safety using highstrength steel rope elastic barriers with a large span vertical opening.

The system can be installed on any type of passenger platform to prevent accidents and unauthorised access to rail track and promises quick installation without the need to interfere with train operation schedules. It is a tailor-made robust solution requiring very low power consumption.

Applicable on conventional rail and metro lines, high

speed, or light railways, the RSD system offers unrivalled efficiency at various train length and door configurations. The RSD meets the requirements of SIL 4; offers aesthetic integration in any architectural environment; is applicable for both automated and non-automated train operations; makes maximum use of natural lighting and ventilation; and allows for the passing of high-speed trains. It improves the passenger experience and makes the choice of rail transport an easy and attractive one.

Rail passengers use their phones intensively whilst travelling and surveys show that customers would like more charging points. They feel that their experience is enhanced if they can charge their phones and other portable devices on their journey.

With the long service life of a train, installing and maintaining a rail industry-approved charging service that is reliable, future proof and available to all passengers, requires innovative hardware, careful planning, and a complete charging system approach.

The way phones are charged is evolving towards wireless charging. Nearly all new phones now have wireless charging receivers and a charging port, but will USB sockets become extinct? Engineers refurbishing and designing trains need to think of today’s passenger needs through USB sockets and consider that wireless may well be the future of portable device charging.

Typically, rail projects can pose significant challenges for clients. The access issues associated with rail projects can often mean there is restricted or no plant access available, making use of traditional concreting solutions impossible.

Concrete Canvas is a flexible, concrete-filled geosynthetic, that hardens on hydration to form a thin, durable, and waterproof concrete layer. Essentially, it’s concrete on a roll: you just add water.

Concrete Canvas can be specified in man-portable batched rolls, eliminating the requirement for heavy plant equipment, allowing installations to be carried out on sites which would otherwise be inaccessible, and allowing contractors to minimise or avoid line possession entirely.

The speed and ease of installation means Concrete Canvas is well suited to time-critical track-side work, reducing line possession and improving safety. It has been widely used by Network Rail across the UK for over 10 years and is an industry-accepted alternative to conventional concrete. The geosynthetic has been specified by Route Directors, Senior Asset Engineers (Drainage), and minor works teams across the five Network Rail regions and their 13 routes.

Manufactured entirely in Wales, Concrete Canvas offers a lower carbon, environmentally sensitive solution for erosion control and weed suppression applications when compared to traditional concrete solutions.

EAO is an expert partner for the design of railway device charging systems and incorporates both wireless and USB fast charging into its Passenger Interface range which includes seatback mounted chargers and a range of table mounted chargers. When combined with the latest rail approved power supplies, custom connection cables and a full installation design service - EAO offers a complete charging solution.

The EAOtag electronic gateway connects passengers to the charging systems and enables train operators to monetise their phone chargers through the possibility of marketing messages from sponsors and by encouraging app downloads.

To find out more call 01444 236000 or visit: eao.com/passenger interface.

Established in 1979, Electrowind is an independent, family owned and operated company, offering a strong commitment and continuous passion for its work.

Electro-Wind Limited has over 40 years of experience in the manufacture of transformers for signalling power supplies. At our manufacturing facility we carry out the design and production processes and

adhere to strict quality control guidelines. The design and production management team ensure we maintain our high standards and manage our systems in accordance with our ISO 9001:2015 accreditation.

We regularly deal with a wide range of nationally recognised companies including, but not limited to, Network Rail. Growth of our range of railway equipment is ongoing. The design and manufacture of trackside service pillars have been a prominent feature in several recent new railway maintenance depot upgrades. Electro-Wind pursues everything it does with enthusiasm and a commitment to delivering the highest quality solution and great results, no matter how big the project or how small the request.

Lubcon Lubricants UK LTD is the UK subsidiary of Lubricant Consult GmbH, a worldwide operating German lubricant manufacturer of high-grade greases, oils, pastes, and lube systems for nearly all industrial applications and manufacturing sectors.

The company was founded in 1980 and has since established a wide network of subsidiaries and sales representatives around the globe. It offers an extensive range of specialty lubricants and services as well as its long-time expertise for all applications related to rail, train, and wheel.

Lubcon offers a versatile product portfolio of tested and approved lubricants for the railway industry, such as biodegradable greases and

friction modifiers to reduce wear and noise-intensive friction between wheel and rail. Its focus is to provide sustainable cost saving solutions by using the right products and methods, leading to reduced consumption, extended lifetime, reduced downtimes and a minimised number of different stock items.

HR Kilns Ltd, trading as HR Fibreglass, was established in 2005. Based in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, the company specialises in GRP/FRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic).

HR Kilns / HR Fibreglass is one of the UK's leading manufacturers and suppliers

of GRP Gratings, Walkways, Embankment Steps & Landings, GRP Handrails, Anti-Trespass Panels, GRP Pultruded Profiles, Risers and GRP Troughs. It offers 3D cad design to manufacture and installation, and provides a bespoke GRP service to

suit all of its customer’s requirements.

Any hand-layed products can be manufactured in the company’s workshop from tanks, water collection units, troughs, and any special shapes required. HR Kilns / HR Fibreglass offers cost effective solutions for all new and existing composite requirements

from, design, manufacture, fabrication and installation. It offers installation teams nationwide.

HR Kilns / HR Fibreglass offers a free cutting service on all materials with its Vertical Wall Panel Saw and bench saws. It’s production department can fabricate GRP products to suit any requirements.

HR Kilns Ltd / HR Fibreglass

GRP Embankment Staircases

HR Kilns prefabricated embankment steps and staircases are an ideal, rapid fit permanent solution to provide safe maintenance access to works staff on mounds and embankments. They are designed as a modular system, fabricated from our GRP Pultruded profiles and gratings, with anti-slip stairs. They are lightweight, non-conductive, quick to install, little or no maintenance/repair costs & easy to manoeuver into place. We supply full CAD designs to meet all the NWR specifications.

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 26 years.

www.rail-media.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.

Hosted by RailwayPeople. com, the rail industry’s leading online job board, the Railtex Careers, Talent and Skills Hub 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 Careers, Talent and Skills Hub on stand L51.

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 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

Careers, Talent and Skills Hub (hosted by RailwayPeople.com

Sekisui’s fibre-reinforced foamed urethane (FFU) synthetic wood products have been successfully used in continuous operation on global rail networks for over 41 years.

The construction of Sekisui’s FFU glass fibre strands guarantees the highest level of safety and reliability in daily use on railway tracks. In many countries across over the world, FFU synthetic wood has set the standard for synthetic railway sleepers on bridges and S&C.

The material has the weight of natural wood and many of the same properties. Its close resemblance to traditional timber means that the visual appearance of structures remains intact. It is also easy to repair and, most importantly, has an extremely long life.

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

Since the company’s foundation, Sekisui has dedicated itself to social and environmental contribution and is now an internationally recognised leader in sustainability and environmental initiatives, having recently been selected as one of the Global 100 most sustainable companies.

Samuel Taylor Limited (STL) manufactures precision stamped components and metal assemblies typically used in electro-mechanical switches, as well as sophisticated bonding of base and precious metals.

The company has over 120 years of manufacturing history, and over the past 70 years has developed an in-depth understanding of precious and semiprecious metal stamping for rail focused projects. STL has been involved in the Rail sector since the 1950s, supplying small order contacts and items for refurbishment of existing rolling stock. In many cases this would be where the historical supplier has gone out of business or no longer supplies the market, but increasingly this is also for new designs.

STL’s accumulated know-how can save the rail subcontractor thousands of pounds on refurbishment projects. Many of the relays and mechanical switches are still in use but few of the original supply

chain manufacturers are still around. STL’s tool storage racks run through the era of British Rail to the modern day, which helps save a significant amount of time and money for rail subcontractors tasked with refurbishing power switches as well as sourcing associated metal contacts and components. Typical

refurbishment projects can require only a couple of hundred parts, but if a new design is required, STL can assist in the development of that too.

For more information or to discuss your requirements email:

info@samueltaylor.co.uk

Sealed Air Corporation’s Whisper®

Acoustic Panels offer a sustainable and durable alternative to traditional acoustic materials indoors or out, absorbing noise while being resistant to water, impact, and dirt, eliminating the need for costly protective covers.

Whisper enables durable noise reduction using a network of closed cells in a matrix of honeycomb-like cavities to efficiently absorb noise for at least 50 years. Applications include: noise barrier

walls; rail workshops; train washes; rolling stock interiors; train stations; wheel lathes; tunnels; spoil sheds; bridges; and substations.

Whisper NB is a new range of sustainable absorption materials for noise barrier wall applications. Parallel slots boost acoustic performance at critical rail frequencies, providing the material with category A3 absorption and 5dB of reflection whether inside a cassette, or installed as a cladding

to existing walls. The Whisper NB range is formulated for compatibility with existing post-industrial recycling systems for low density polyethylene (RIC 4) and has an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for open and transparent reporting of sustainability metrics and carbon emissions.

Sealed Air Corporation

C46

Precision engineering since 1899

Precious metal contact rivets

Rolled inlay contact strip

High speed presswork

Full design and tool build

Prototype to mass production

info@samueltaylor.co.uk

www.samueltaylor.co.uk

A NEW RANGE OF ACOUSTIC PANELS FOR NOISE BARRIER WALL USE

Whisper® NB Acoustic Panels have been designed to offer a sustainable and durable alternative to traditional mineral wool cassette fill materials. Whisper® NBO was formulated to be a durable outdoor wall cladding, eliminating the need for perforated aluminium covers.

Whisper® NB is a honeycomb-like matrix of networked closed cells which efficiently absorb noise, even in challenging external environments. Flat parallel slots boost absorption at critical rail/road frequencies, providing the material with category A3 absorption whether inside a cassette, or installed as a cladding to reflective noise barrier walls. Find out more

NOISE CAN BE ANNOYING…JUST MAKE IT WHISPER®

Game set and match for depot safety

According to the RSSB’s most recent Annual Health and Safety Report, more than 20% of workforce harm and fatalities have occurred in maintenance facilities in the last five years. This impaired health is a huge problem for the industry. The safety board estimates it costs £899 million annually, with 1.3 million days lost to sickness absence. This is twice the national average.

Leading safety expert, Christian Fletcher, head of Engineering at Sheffield’s Zonegreen, has been striving to improve working conditions in rail depots for more than 20 years. He said: “We all know high-speed vehicles, high voltage electricity, and powerful machinery introduce significant elements of risk into the maintenance environment, but the stark findings of the RSSB show not enough is being done to focus on the safety of depot workers and provide conditions in which staff can fulfil their role without fear.”

Christian believes technology is the answer and can be used to automate and regulate depot safety, eliminating the margin for human error. As a result, he and his team at Zonegreen have developed one of the most advanced protection systems on the market, allowing the safe and efficient control of vehicles in maintenance environments.

Technology has an important role to play Zonegreen’s Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS) safeguards maintenance staff from unexpected train movements via Network Railapproved powered derailers.

Staff log onto DPPS using RFID tags, which record their location and activate the appropriate derailers. They remain in place until the operative has logged off and the road is once again opened to traffic.

Access permission for a train can only be granted by a supervisor, who uses a conveniently positioned road-end control panel. They are usually situated next to depot doors, giving a clear view of incoming and outgoing vehicles. If the derailer has been lowered, the signal to proceed will be given and audible and visual warnings activated to indicate movement.

DPPS can also be linked to Zonegreen’s advanced Depot Manager software, offering an overview of the entire protection system and complete traceability. It provides key information to make operations easier and quicker to implement, for example, identifying peak movement times, so additional focus can be placed on safety during these highest risk periods.

A perfect match for Wimbledon

One of the latest facilities to be equipped with Zonegreen’s state-of-the-art technology is South Western Railway’s Wimbledon Traincare Depot in London. The firm worked with Octavius Infrastructure to deliver the project, which saw DPPS replace an existing obsolete safety system.

The depot remained fully operational whilst the new technology was installed on five double-ended roads and two singled-ended roads.

Christian continued: “Due to its age, state, and the availability of parts, an increasing number of faults and breakdowns were occurring on Wimbledon’s former safety system, making it difficult to safeguard the workforce and carry out maintenance activities. It is crucial in such a busy depot that staff are protected by reliable and effective technology and they now have that in DPPS. It works for the facility’s current needs and is futureproofed to allow further upgrades to be integrated seamlessly.”

Independent accreditation

DPPS is not only one of the most advanced safety system on the market, but also the

most thoroughly tested and proven in use, meaning it is the lowest risk option for depot protection.

The whole system has been independently certified to meet both the hardware and software requirements of SIL 2 - a reliability assessment of the relative risk reduction provided by a safety system. It is also compliant with the European standards for railway and radio emissions, and uses intuitive technology to make it easier to maintain, modify, and expand, extending the lifetime of the product.

Safety demonstrations

Zonegreen will be showcasing its DPPS at Railtex this year, on stand M11 at Birmingham’s NEC, from 9-11 May.

Throughout the event, the firm’s head of engineering 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.

WHAT’S THE COST OF LIVING?

Sentric Group

Zonegreen’s SMART DPPSTM allows the safe and effective control of train movements with depots, protecting both staff and infrastructure.

WE ARE EXHIBITING AT

Connecting the UK rail industry for over 26 years.

THE UK’S LEADING MEDIA GROUP DEDICATED TO THE RAIL INDUSTRY

Find your role!

What is RailwayPeople.com?

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 to find

People fo Infrastru

People for Infrastructure

McGinley hires workers or finds employees for companies in the of the construction industry, buil workforces all over the UK

McGinley hires workers or finds permanent employees for companies in the infrastructure sector of the construction industry, building and managing workforces all over the UK

Whether you are looking for a partner, we have the knowledg help you succeed

Whether you are looking for a job or a supply chain partner, we have the knowledge and expertise to help you succeed

As true infrastructure experts we y experience and an unparalleled network. This combined with a large number of accreditations, memberships and awards give you the confidence you need to engage with us.

As true infrastructure experts we have over 40 years ' experience and an unparalleled network. This combined with a large number of accreditations, memberships and awards give you the confidence you need to engage with us.

WE ARE RECRUITING

WE ARE RECRUITING

• PTS & safety critical contingent labour

• PTS & safety critical contingent labour

• Signalling & telecoms

• Signalling & telecoms

• Overhead line electrification

• Overhead line electrification

• Track welding

• Track welding

• Minor works packages

• Minor works packages

• Flexi-jobs apprenticeships

• Flexi-jobs apprenticeships