A SCOTTISH RAIL PERSPECTIVE

The engineering disciplines within the railway do not always collaborate as much as they should. It was therefore good to attend a joint IRSE (Signalling) and IMechE (rolling stock) meeting in Glasgow on 20 April. There was no principal speaker, but a panel of experts gave an introductory five-minute talk, after which the meeting opened up as a discussion session. This turned out to be very illuminating.

Transport Scotland

Bill Reeve, the Director for Rail within the Scottish Government transport department, and a former traction and rolling stock engineer, looked forward to the beginning of CP7 and the impact this would have on the Scottish High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for rail services and investment.

Unlike CP6, which had an associated HLOS specified by the Scottish Government but proved difficult to get a centralised Network Rail to respond, CP7 had much more of a devolved team within Network Rail Scotland to shape the proposals, thus allowing local prioritisation on spending. In effect, Bill has the Scottish cheque book and will have much more freedom to spend the allocated money to obtain the best value investments. The amount to be spent is around £1.4 billion per year, and includes Network Rail, Scotrail, and Caledonian Sleepers. This is a considerable sum and, whilst Scotland’s railways are considered successful, getting the right level of competition, both into the railways and against the road and air competitors, is high on the list of priorities.

Services have to be delivered with a diminishing unit cost. Passenger operations have remained static in terms of cost even though the numbers of people travelling have doubled. Why should this be? There is a thrust for decarbonisation where transport is 37% of the total carbon emissions but rail represents only 1.2% of this. One can deduce that modal shift will be one of the objectives. Electrification will play a major part in this, leading to lower cost trains with more capacity and better performance. Diesel, whether by road or rail, will always be more expensive.

Already, the Scottish electrification plans are moving forward much faster than in other parts of the UK.

Transport Scotland has major concerns about two parts of the rail supply base: ticketing and signalling. Whilst unit costs for the latter are better than in the whole of the UK, they are still too high. Signalling is regarded as a ‘distress purchase’ and, despite pressures to invest in ETCS, more electrification appears to offer better value. Signalling renewals will be progressed as to whatever turns out to be the cheapest and most practical. Even refitting traditional mechanical signalling is considered a realistic option. At present, the return on investment for ETCS takes too long.

Putting Signalling Into Context

Lynsey Hunter, the Signalling Asset Manager for the Region has the challenging task of keeping Scotland’s signalling systems in good order, ensuring that renewals take place to ensure a safe railway is maintained. Signal engineers are very good at squeezing life out of an asset and the clever use of data to monitor infrastructure age, condition, and failures helps enormously. That said, the challenge in CP7 will be to avoid partial renewals and life extensions. These are not good value for money although it is recognised that some component replacements will happen.

The existing signalling has some technologies that will need replacing. The RETB control centres at Banavie and Inverness are out of date, tokenless block systems on some routes are difficult to maintain, and geographical interlockings of the 1970s era are not always in good fettle. The knowledge base for these systems is diminishing and only those engineers and technicians with 40-plus years of experience have the in-depth expertise to design and maintain the technology associated with the equipment.

There is a need to optimise the way forward and to create an overarching, market-led strategy. This will concentrate on a line of route concept, always remembering that Scottish signalling is a business. The central belt is where the highest traffic levels are encountered, and these must have the priority with the control centres constantly scrutinised as to whether their operation can be improved. In the remoter parts, attention needs to be given to the Stranraer line where a way forward is required. Maybe a form of on-board signalling will be the answer, with ETCS and RETB being possible solutions. Here again, cost will be a deciding factor.

Rail Operations

Ross Moran, the regional Operations Director for Network Rail, asked whether the concept for national rail operations in the UK is right for Scotland. With a long railway career including signaller and shipping (CalMac), he has seen many operational disasters - trains that do not fit platforms, ships that don’t fit docks, and suchlike - and is always wary of new things that have not been properly thought through. He rejects the national plan to have only two Railway Operations Centres (ROCs) for Scotland. It is too complex and has too many associated high risks. He says the right number is probably around five which, as well as Edinburgh and Glasgow, will include Perth, Inverness, Aberdeen, and maybe Stirling. There is a need to give opportunities for the local workforces where local knowledge and expertise is all important.

The evolving signalling strategy must have operations at its heart and the line of route control is favoured. In parallel, other digital systems including Traffic Management Systems (TMS) and Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) have to be there to ensure operational performance is maximised. The TMS Luminate system is to be provided in Edinburgh as a trial and will be expanded elsewhere once the benefits are understood and used.