Rail Engineer - Issue 205 | November - December 2023 by Rail Media

by rail engineers for rail engineers

NOV-DEC 2023 – ISSUE 205

PG.14

SwiftLine Rail Dropper

the

supply chain is key ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

LIGHT RAIL & METRO

PERMANENT WAY & LINESIDE ASSETS

SPARKING

NEW TRAINS

TRACK RENEWALS

THE MIDLANDS

ON THE PICCADILLY LINE

ON HERITAGE RAILWAYS

Positive work is under way on the MML after years of disruption.

The first complete train is under trial at Siemens’ Test and Validation Centre.

Critical maintenance is required before the busy festive season.

PG.18

PG.54

PG.70

www.railengineer.co.uk

Engineering a better future for our planet and its people We’re committed to lead our clients, and partners across the infrastructure ecosystem, to engineer this better future for our planet and its people. atkinsrealis.com

18 CONTENTS 08|

HS2 cutback update

14|

Gripple Swiftline Rail Dropper

Curtailing HS2 was a decision of huge magnitude, and the consequences are now becoming clear. David Shirres reports.

Gripple’s new rail dropper for overhead line equipment has now been approved and offers great benefits.

18|

Sparking the Midlands

The electrification of the Midlands Main Line has seen continual stops and starts, but there is now much activity and positive work under way.

24| 26| 30| 36| 42| 50| 54|

Royston electrification: first zero emission work completed

Network Rail’s Eastern region completed its first zero emissions engineering work during October. David Fenner tells us more.

Collision at Salisbury Tunnel Junction, October 2021

The RAIB’s final report discusses how controls and mitigations managing the risks of collision in low adhesion conditions failed.

Nothing went wrong – except poor adhesion

In October 2022, five cement tank wagons derailed at Petteril Bridge Junction, Carlisle, blocking the line for several weeks.

Levenmouth almost reconnected

The installation of a final golden pandrol clip marks the completion of track laying on the Levenmouth Rail Link project.

New trains on the Docklands Light Railway The latest batch of trains for the DLR blurs the distinction between light rail and metro.

Delivering Dockland Light Railway

Malcolm Dobell discusses the preparations for new trains on the DLR and improving the performance of existing trains.

New trains for Piccadilly line in 2025

In August, the first complete train arrived at Siemens’ Test and Validation Centre in Wegberg-Wildenrath to start type testing.

58 30

58| 64| 66| 70| 74| 76| 78| 80|

The railway and its supply chain

RIA’s annual conference was a great opportunity to hear the thoughts of customers, the Government, and train companies.

RIA Annual Conference: a personal perspective Malcolm Dobell gives his own observations of people, leadership, and attitudes at RIA’s Annual Conference.

Opportunities for composites in rail

Composite materials are used throughout the rail industry, and it is little wonder the recent International Composites Summit attracted much attention.

Track renewals on heritage railways

Christmas is the busiest time for many heritage railways, and critical maintenance activities must be carried out beforehand.

Mining risk management

Mining features underly 29% of the railway network, and it’s critical the risks of failure are kept as low as reasonably practicable.

ALARP or SFAIRP - what’s the difference?

Many wonder whether or not these terms mean the same thing. We give you an explanation.

Developments in fibre optic telecoms cable

The past 10 years have seen huge developments in fibre optic technology. Paul Darlington tells us more.

Signalling investment, the next six years

There is growing concern about the age of the many signalling systems and resolving the problem is a real head-scratcher.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

EDITORIAL HS2’s

DAVID DAVID SHIRRES SHIRRES

hidden truths

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

‘Unacceptable’ overcrowding at Euston station is ‘putting people at risk’ October 2023 - ORR issued Network Rail with an improvement notice in respect of crowd management at London Euston station

n his statement to Parliament – ‘Zero-emission vehicles, drivers and HS2’ – Transport Minister Mark Harper explained the Network North plan. He explained that the £36 billion that was to be spent on HS2 phase 2 to Manchester is now to be spent on a wide range of activities. This includes diverse, largely undeveloped projects and non-capital expenditure such a capping bus fares and fixing potholes. It does not address key Northern rail capacity problems such as Leeds station and the Castlefield corridor.

When Rail Engineer asked how this figure was derived, the Department for Transport refused to provide an answer. As we describe in our HS2 update feature, the reality is that phase one will greatly benefit Birmingham, with faster journeys and a huge increase rail capacity to London. As it offers nothing for Northern cities, this is the reverse of levelling-up. Network North also states that an upgrade of Handsacre Junction will create more train paths. This is also untrue. This ‘upgrade’ merely prevents HS2 trains joining the WCML, further reducing the line’s capacity. When Harper appeared before the Parliamentary Transport Committee (PTC), its chair asked about WCML capacity north of Handsacre. He wanted to know what is to be done to increase

This plan claims that what remains of HS2 will almost double the West Coast Main Line’s (WCML) capacity to 250,000 seats per day. This is not credible as it is equivalent to 18 x 589-seat Pendolino trains per hour, running 24 hours a day.

LNER millions passenger journeys 25 20 15 10 5

/2 3

capacity following the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 as the line is now full. Harper seemed to consider that nothing needs be done as he did not accept that the line was full, nor would it be so for some time. He considered that the pandemic had driven people away from rail and they are not returning that fast. Again, this view does not reflect reality. The WCML is one of Europe’s busiest mixed traffic rail corridors which many in the industry, such as the Rail Freight Group, consider to be full. A Network Rail study undertaken in February 2020 also reached this conclusion. In respect of long distance rail travel, ORR figures show that LNER passenger journeys in 2022/23 were 10% above the prepandemic figure. Thus, the truth is that there is a very real WCML capacity problem north of Handsacre. Building HS2 phase 2a to Crewe would both resolve this and significantly increase the benefits of phase one with relatively little extra spend. The above inaccuracies reflect the way Network North was hastily produced by a small number of Ministers and advisers. This contrasts with time and expertise taken to develop HS2 and the 1,300 of hours parliamentary time that scrutinised it. Furthermore, there was no consultation with key bodies such as Network Rail or the National Infrastructure Commission, whose role is to deliver expert advice on long term infrastructure challenges.

/2 2

/2 1

/2 0

/1 9

/1 8

/1 7

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

/1 6

/1 5

/1 4

/1 3

12 20

/1 2

0 20

THE TEAM

Editor David Shirres editor@railengineer.co.uk

Harper advised Parliament that the Government “are backing Britain’s drivers and slamming the brakes on anti-car policies.” He told the PTC that 70% of the £36 billion savings from curtailing HS2 spend is now to be spent on roads and that prioritising roads in this way was very sensible. In contrast, the Welsh and Scottish governments have transport strategies which aim for a shift from car use to more sustainable transport modes. Harper concluded his HS2 statement by advising that Network North (which includes Plymouth and Kent) is a new vision for transport. Yet this is a vision that fails to address critical rail capacity problems and lacks coherence. Hence, it cannot be an effective way of spending £36 billion unless the aim is to appeal to as many constituencies as possible. RIA’s annual conference took place less than a month after the HS2 announcement. Clive Kessell was there to report on the mood of the conference and the key issues raised which includes uncertainty about future projects. Midland Main Line (MML) electrification is currently being extended to just south of Leicester. Peter Stanton describes the various ways to ensure that this is being delivered in an affordable manner. However, as yet the full MML has yet to be authorised despite this being promised in the Integrated Rail Plan two years ago. We also have two other electrification features: David Fenner explains how the overhead line equipment (OLE) upgrade at Royston was Network Rail’s first zero emissions renewals work, and Paul Darlington describes the new guidance note on managing mining risk during the installation of OLE piles and other construction work. The project to re-open the Levenmouth branch is now almost complete. This includes timetable development which can be a key part of any enhancement project. On the basis of previous Scottish re-openings, this will transform the

local economy. This is what railways do. Certainly, the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was essential to the development of London’s docklands when it opened 35 years ago. We also explain what’s involved in introducing DLR’s new trains and keeping older trains running until they can be replaced. Malcolm Dobell has been to Siemen’s Wildenrath test track in Germany to ride on the new London Underground (LU) Piccadilly line stock which will replace the current 1973 stock. His feature describes these trains and explains why they are the first LU units to have vehicles without wheels. He concludes with a stark warning of the consequences of not replacing the 1972 Bakerloo Line stock soon. Low adhesion presents a significant risk for which there are various mitigation measures. We describe how the RAIB report into the Salisbury Tunnel Junction collision highlights the importance of compliance with these risk controls. The Petteril Bridge Junction derailment was a quite different low adhesion accident which shows the need to develop wagons that can detect non-rotating wheels. Bob Hazel has been considering how the 15-inch gauge Romney, Hythe, and Dymchurch Railway and the standard-gauge North Norfolk Railway (NNR) heritage railways renew their track. On the NNR three turnouts and associated plain line track were renewed at a cost of £135,000 per turnout. Although not directly comparable, it is worth noting that this compares with around £1 million on mainline infrastructure. In contrast we consider the renewal of signalling systems commissioned in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s and the extent to which digital signalling is the answer. As Christmas approaches, Rail Engineer hopes that our readers have a great time over the festive season. Our thoughts are also with those who will be working on track doing essential engineering work at this time.

Production Editor Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com

Production and design Lauren Palin 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 Craig Smith David King

asif@rail-media.com craig@rail-media.com david.king@rail-media.com

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

Rail Engineer Videos http://rail.media/REYouTube

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

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

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

www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

NOTICES

From office work to OLE

DAVID SHIRRES

The ‘Practical Electrification Challenge’ aims to give office-based professionals an understanding of electrification, in particular the practicalities of its installation. It is a Permanent Way Institution (PWI) initiative that is, in effect, a hands-on crash course in electrification construction. This year’s challenge took place in October at Network Rail’s electrification training school in Swindon. It was organised by Garry Keenor of AtkinsRéalis, Simon Skinner of SPL Powerlines, who supplied the tools, and Noel Dolphin of Furrer+Frey, who supplied the material. Noel explained that the intention is to educate those who may take decisions about future electrification projects on the complexities and difficulties of the installation Overhead Line Equipment (OLE). The hope is that this will positively influence future electrification projects and result in better planning, safety, and reduced costs. The PWI offered this three-day event free of charge to 25 participants who came from the Office of Road and Rail, Transport for Wales, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and other rail businesses. Participants had diverse occupations which included: finance, researchers, civil engineers, and railway inspectors. The first day was in the classroom. This included an overview of electrification and its benefits, real world installation, electrification design considerations, historic lessons learnt, and on-site assurance. There was also a powerful safety presentation from Bryant Latham who had survived a 25kV electric shock.

On the second and third days, participants erected a 130-metre wire run from structures spaced about 10 metres apart. To avoid the need to work at height from machines, the contact wire was erected at chest height. Participants were split into three groups to learn about: » Installation of cantilevers. » Measurement of heights and staggers. » Bonding. » Rigging. » Switching and feeding. » Installation of termination brackets. » Registration of cantilevers and droppers. » Installation of in-span insulation and neutral sections. During two wet days, it took the trainees one and a half days to erect their wire run and half a day to dismantle it. Participants were perhaps glad to return to their dry offices, but no doubt welcomed their opportunity to get close-up, hands-on experience of OLE components. The PWI hopes to run two such events next year, each with 32 participants.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

NOTICES

Class 150 units

back on the Marston Vale line In March 2019, the first Vivarail Class 230 train entered service on the Marston Vale line running from Bletchley to Bedford. Class 230 trains replaced Class 153 single car trains and class 150 units. Following Vivarail’s demise, until 20 November 2023 there was no passenger train service on this line since December 2022. Hourly rail replacement buses have been running since then and will continue to run until the full service is restored in early 2024. Over the last 11 months London Northwestern Railway (LNR) had been working hard to secure replacements and they announced 25 July 2023 that three Class 150 trains had arrived at Bletchley depot for this service. Many platforms on the line are quite short and Class 150 two car units are amongst the few diesel multiple units that are suitable. They are also in short supply. LNR’s website gave extensive information about the temporary arrangements and future plans. Many commentators wondered why LNR could not take over maintenance of the Class 230 trains. LNR posted two relevant comments in its Q&A:

Q:Why was LNR not able to take on Vivarail staff to continue running the fleet?

PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL

A: Unfortunately, Vivarail held the intellectual property rights for the Class 230 trains and was the Entity in Charge of Maintenance [part of the license to operate], as well as holding all of the required technical expertise. Therefore, it was not feasible for LNR to simply take on Vivarail staff.

A: Reinstating the Class 230s was neither feasible nor desirable given their significant reliability issues. On average, three engines per week required changing due to reliability issues, necessitating a substantial workshop operation. The anticipated future costs of keeping the fleet running would have been significant. Since July, LNR has applied its livery to the trains’ exterior and has trained and/or retrained its maintenance staff and enough drivers and guards had been trained to enable a peak time service from 20 November 2023. Jonny Wiseman, LNR customer experience director, said: “We are delighted to announce the return of passenger trains to the Marston Vale Line. “We recognise that due to logistical constraints it has taken longer than we had hoped to bring back the train service and we thank our customers for their patience. “While we will initially be running a partial timetable, we are working hard to train our drivers and senior conductors as quickly as possible with a view to resuming the full service in the new year.” Four services in each direction are running on the route on Monday-Fridays. The services will be focused on the morning and afternoon peak periods, with rail replacement buses continuing to operate at other times. The full timetable, including the return of a Saturday service, is expected to resume in early 2024 once enough train crew are able to operate the Class 150 fleet. With the exception of heritage railways, it is unusual to celebrate putting three 35-40 year old trains into operation, but the restoration of this line’s service will halve the journey time compared with the replacement buses and enable the active Community Rail Group to help rebuild the line’s customer base.

PHOTO: LNR

Class 230 first day in service

Q: Did you give consideration to reinstating the Class 230s?

MALCOLM DOBELL Ex-Northern Class 150 in LNR livery

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

HS2 cutback update

DAVID SHIRRES

he only parts of HS2 now certain to be built are from Old Oak Common to Birmingham and Handsacre Junction on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). When announcing his decision to cancel HS2 phase 2 and replace it with Network North, Prime Minister Sunak gave an assurance that HS2 would terminate at Euston. However, it now seems that this promise depends on securing sufficient private investment. Curtailing HS2 was a decision of huge magnitude. The HS2 Y network from London to Manchester and Leeds, and its trains, were designed as a fully integrated system. Hence permanently curtailing the network to its trunk line has significant adverse consequences. These consequences are now becoming clearer, partly from the Parliamentary Transport Committee (PTC)’s HS2 update session on 8 November, when witnesses included Andrew McNaughton (AMcN), HS2’s chief engineer then technical director from 2012 to 2018, and Richard Bowker (RB) who was CEO of the Strategic Rail Authority which rescued the West Coast Route Modernisation project.

CAPACITY Part of the case for curtailing HS2 was passenger numbers not returning to their 2019 pre-Covid levels. Yet the 1.4 billion rail passenger journeys in 2022/23 were 10% more than those in

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

2009/10 when HS2 was initiated. At the PTC, RB advised that, on the West Coast Main Line (WCML), Virgin trains passenger numbers increased from 11 million to 40 million in the 20 years since 1997.

AMcN noted when HS2 was initiated, the WCML was expected to run out of capacity in the mid2020s. Though Covid was a shock, against an underlying long term trend, its effect is delaying WCML running out of capacity to 2030. RB advised that, between Lichfield and Crewe, WCML is already at capacity with 13 train paths: Manchester (3); Liverpool (2); Preston & Glasgow (2); Chester (1); West Midlands Trains (1); and Freight (4). HS2 phase 2a from Handsacre Junction to Crewe would have by-passed this section to allow more trains to run, particularly freight trains. It would have also offered more trains on the Manchester to Birmingham corridor. HS2’s train frequency is determined by the capacity of its London terminal station. RB advised that Old Oak Common could reliably operate six to eight trains per hour and that the current plan is for seven trains per hour. He considered a lot of people would be penalised if this became HS2’s London terminus. Both RB and AMcN considered that a six-platform HS2 Euston station could operate 10 trains per hour provided that there was grade separation between departing and arriving trains. AMcN considered that, to ensure a reliable service, there should be a seventh platform to accommodate any failed trains.

FEATURE In his statement to Parliament about the HS2 cutback, Transport Minister Mark Harper claimed that HS2 phase 1 will still deliver a massive increase in capacity to the WCML by increasing the number of seats a day from 134,000 to 250,000, despite no additional WCML capacity being provided north of Handsacre junction. The table below uses the information in RB’s evidence to the PTC to estimate that HS2 phase 1 from Euston offers a 49% overall increase in seat capacity, with a 153% capacity increase on services to Birmingham, whilst the northern cities will get little from HS2.

WCML Passengers per hour off peak service 10 tph from Euston Birmingham

Pendolino

HS2 phase 1 capacity estimate in Network North document

Present Trains per hour

Seats per train

589

HS2 Seats/hr

Seats per train

Seats/hr

1767

589

1178

1100

3300

1 x HS2 unit Total Other WCML

1767

4478

Pendolinos

589

4123

589

Voyager (Chester)

200

1 x HS2 unit

550

3300

2 x HS2 unit

1100

Total Grand Total

Trains per hour

8 Passengers per hour

Rail Engineer asked the DfT press desk to supply the assumptions and calculations from which their estimate that HS2 phase 1 will increase the seat capacity of the HS2 / West Coast long-distance operator by 86% was derived. Its response was that: “We estimate capacity will nearly double between London and Birmingham and there could be up to 250,000 seats per day along the West Coast Main Line and HS2 combined,” and, without any explanation, it advised that the underlying calculations are internal estimates which cannot be supplied. As shown above, the DfT is right to state that Birmingham will benefit from a huge increase in connectivity with the capital, yet with no plans to increase WCML capacity north of Handsacre it is unrealistic to consider that HS2 phase 1 will provide the WCML as a whole with an 86% capacity

increase. The DfT’s refusal to explain how this estimate was derived further detracts from its credibility. Thus, it would seem that Harper was wrong to advise Parliament that HS2 phase 1 offers “a massive increase in capacity to the WCML” as it offers little capacity north of Handsacre Junction. When PTC chair, Iain Stewart, asked him what is to be done to relieve the severe WCML capacity constraint north of Handsacre junction, he failed to answer this specific point. Indeed, when Harper appeared before the PTC on 15 November, he advised that there was no such capacity problem.

FREIGHT WCML is used by 40% of the UK’s rail freight. With the cancellation of HS2, there are now no plans to increase the current four freight paths per hour on the WCML north of

4323

6090

increase

153%

4600

9078

49%

Lichfield. In its statement, the Rail Freight Group (RFG) “condemned Government’s decision to cancel HS2 construction north of Birmingham describing it as the worst possible outcome for rail freight.” RFG director general, Maggie Simpson said: “Scrapping HS2 whilst still allowing its trains to run on the existing network is the worst of all possible decisions. The West Coast Main Line simply does not have the capacity for these extra trains alongside current services,” and that investment will now be required to ensure all trains can be accommodated. The RFG statement noted the recent significant investment in new strategic rail freight facilities to support WCML rail freight growth which HS2 would have provided. Cutting back HS2 is both a blow to those investors and those who wish for fewer HGVs on the nation’s roads.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

BUSINESS CASE In October, the DfT’s accounting officer advised that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of only building HS2 phase 1 was 1.1 to 1.8, excluding money already spent. This assessment showed that only building phase 1 reduced its value for money as it only offered eight trains per hour (tph), rather than the 17 tph offered by phase 2. The BCR for the phase 2 schemes was not calculated as it was not normal practice to assess cancelled schemes. At its last published cost of £44.6 billion, the 224km HS2 phase 1 route costs 200 million per km. The 60km HS2 phase 2a route was estimated to cost between £5.2 to £7.2 billion which is about £100 million per km. Phase 2a did not require expensive tunnelling so is half the cost of phase 1 and could have doubled the number of its train paths.

With the cancellation of phase 2a, the junction will now be constructed as originally designed with HS2 joining the WCML fast lines. This is a further aspect of cancelling phase 2a that will involve significant additional costs. Moreover, as the HS2 phase 2a Act now specifies a slow line connection, there are no longer Parliamentary powers to construct the original junction connecting HS2 to the WCML fast lines. Handsacre Junction options

BUSINESS IMPACT When asked about the impact on business of HS2’s curtailment, AMcN advised that the scale of this is pretty big as hundreds of SMEs are involved with HS2’s infrastructure and trains. He mentioned that the company leaders he had met expressed genuine shock at the impact of the HS2 decision and that this will reduce the number of apprenticeships. Another witness observed that the HS2 decision creates business uncertainty which makes projects more expensive and discourages apprenticeships. Not surprisingly, at the PTC, RB considered that HS2 phase 2a must have a high BCR as it would free up paths for more freight and passenger services as well as giving HS2 trains an additional 13 minute journey time saving. AMcN advised that he would be astonished if there was an economic case for HS2 phase 1 on its own. He noted that, since 2009, HS2 considered that there was no point of HS2 just going to Birmingham as this had to be considered as the start of something that was to open up northern cities. RB made a heartfelt appeal to Government to reconsider HS2 phase 2a as, for relatively little additional cost, it offered transformational benefits and would make best use of the money spent on phase 1. He noted that phase 2a would have provided game changing improved connectivity between cities in northern England. For example, Birmingham to Manchester in 42 minutes instead of the current 90 minutes. The PTC considered alternatives that might provide the same capacity as HS2 phase 2a, the cost of which should have been considered as part of the decision to cut back HS2. RB advised that something similar to the massively disruptive £10 billion WCML route modernisation would be required, though this would not offer the same benefits as HS2. One particular issue is Handsacre Junction which was originally designed to transfer HS2 trains directly onto the WCML’s centre fast lines to minimise their capacity impact. This required an expensive 1.9km diversion of the WCML Up slow and fast lines. The decision to accelerate phase 2a’s construction meant that few HS2 trains would use the junction, hence the junction was redesigned to reduce costs with HS2 lines joining the WCML slow lines.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

The decision to transfer the project management of Euston station from HS2 to a development company adds further uncertainty as HS2 let a £1.6 billion contract for construction of Euston Station in 2019. Government recently declined to confirm whether these contracts will still be valid under its new Euston station plans. It has also been reported that Alstom is to make 600 of its 2,000 people redundant at its Derby works which is to have had a key role building 54 trains for HS2. Alstom now expects fewer trains will be required and is now seeking clarity in this respect. Whilst this is likely to be a factor in Alstom’s decision to impose redundancies, a bigger issue is there being no significant new train orders since December 2019. It is worth noting that a significant factor in the growth of the Alstom and Siemens rail business was the demand for their high-speed trains due to the construction of the French and German high-speed networks over 25 years ago.

EUSTON Although the Prime Minister’s announcement stated HS2 would terminate at Euston, the following day the BBC reported that unless sufficient private finance is raised, HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common (OOC).

HS2’s Euston construction site

AMcN noted that, with over four designs for HS2’s Euston station, over £100 million of design work had been wasted. In his view, this was a case study of how not to do things. He wondered if Government understood the implications of specifying an over station development. In his experience, few of the world’s cities build on top of their stations as this presented significant additional engineering challenges. He felt that this was a key reason for its excessive cost. Constructing the 7.2km tunnels between OOC and Euston is part of a contract let to Skanska Costain STRABAG in 2017 as part of the Main Works Civils (Area South) package. Recently, Skanska advised that their two tunnel boring machines will complete the tunnels to Euston in 2028. In respect of Euston, the DfT advised Rail Engineer that “the Government will continue to comprehensively engage with the private sector and the existing HS2 supply chain to work to deliver this project, creating a transformative Euston quarter with as many as 10,000 new homes and opportunities for businesses to thrive” and that this uses a similar approach to the successful regeneration of King’s Cross and the Battersea and Nine Elms development which included the Northern Line extension.

At the PTC, RB stressed that the primary function of HS2 Euston is as a railway station and was concerned that involving private finance could increase cost.

COSTS Not surprisingly the PTC expressed concern about HS2’s costs. AMcN considered that the scheme that went into bill was accurately costed as it was designed by the people who designed HS1 which was delivered to budget with similar complexity to HS2. He felt that HS2 was no different to any other infrastructure project in that all suffered from the materials, energy, and other cost increases. He advised that, after Carillion went into administration, the supply chain became nervous about risk. On HS2, the Client has given a lot of risk to the contractor who then provided costly over-engineered ‘bomb proof’ designs to insure themselves against this risk. He observed that whilst there were lots of white collar people, the UK was not well blessed with artisans who create projects which is, in part, due to the stop-start nature of government funded projects. Hence there needs to be greater emphasis on standard construction that does not need so many skilled people. He also noted that the client needs to know what they want and stick to it. He noted that “every change is Christmas for supply chain.” Hence clients must avoid changes in scope. RB considered that when projects get into difficulty, it is important to consider how the client specifies and manages the project. AMcN accepted that costs had increased due to poor ground condition data as sometimes it had not been possible to access land for surveys. He considered that this was one reason for cost escalation, though it was not the principal reason. When questioned whether HS2 phase 1’s design had changed since its Bill became an Act AMcN confirmed it had not and that he did not have a clue what had changed to increase costs since then. He advised that from day 1, HS2 had been designed for maximum capacity in accordance with its remit. This increased costs as it required more tunnels to minimise public impact from an intensive service. Slab track was also chosen because of the high cumulative load. He insisted that the incremental cost of high speed is marginal and that it “simply was not the case that speed affected alignment.” AMcN also noted that DfT studies had shown that enhancing the existing network to increase capacity comparable to HS2 would cost more with huge disruption requiring lines to be continuously shut at weekends for years. This would also significantly affect those adjacent to the line as existing railways run through towns that have grown along the railway.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

NO STRATEGY HS2 was born out of a highly detailed 2008 Network Rail study that considered the longterm need for rail capacity which concluded that the WCML needed to be relieved by a high-speed line. HS2 then developed proposals for a Y-shaped network serving eight of the UK’s 10 largest cities which were then subject to intense Parliamentary scrutiny. For around 15-years this has been the strategy for providing much-needed rail capacity on which Network Rail and northern cities authorities have based their planning assumptions. This strategy changed with the publication of the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) in November 2021. Although this terminated HS2’s eastern leg at East Midlands Parkway, HS2 was still a major part of IRP which proposed that part of Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) would use its western leg to Manchester. With the curtailment of HS2, IRP lost its backbone and so ceased to be a strategy. NPR also lost part of its proposed Liverpool to Manchester line.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

HS2 phase 2 has been replaced by the collection of diverse, largely undeveloped, projects that is Network North. In contrast to the expertise and time taken to develop HS2’s Y network, Network North was hastily produced without consulting Network Rail or other key bodies including the National Infrastructure Commission whose chairman, Sir John Armitt told the RIA conference that he considered the Network North document to be “a bucket full of projects” that was not a cohesive plan. At the PTC, RB expressed similar concerns about Network North. He agreed that it contained some worthwhile projects such as the Ely capacity enhancement which would provide extra freight train paths. Yet the WCML won’t be able to accommodate any such additional freight traffic. Network North also includes 70 road upgrades and allocates billions of pounds to repair potholes, so is a significant transfer of funding from rail to roads. For example, the Government claims that its “£8 billion boost to repair roads and back drivers” is redirected HS2 funding. Yet this is not true as HS2 was a profitable capital investment that was to be funded by borrowing, whereas the cost of road repairs is operational expenditure. Thus, the Prime Minister’s October announcement not only cancelled HS2 phase 2 but left the UK without a strategy to increase rail capacity. Moreover, the decision to sell land acquired for HS2 makes it difficult for any future government to develop such a strategy. In the last 25 years, the number of cars on Britain’s roads has increased from 22 million to 32 million. Instead of adding to the road load, modal shift to rail is needed to reduce transport carbon and provide the connectivity that northern cities need to boost their economies. As Richard Bowker noted, if the nation seriously wishes to address these issues, a strategy to increase rail capacity will be needed. For the UK’s northern cities, any future strategy is unlikely to be much different to the one on which hundreds of millions of pounds has been spent over many years whilst it was developed subject to intense Parliamentary scrutiny, namely HS2 phase 2. Hence the decision to sell off land acquired for HS2 prevents any meaningful plans to increase rail capacity. It is also inexplicable why the decision has been taken not to construct the 58km HS2 phase 2a line which would hugely increase the benefits from phase 1.

TUESDAY

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

PAUL DARLINGTON

SwiftLine Rail Dropper ALL PHOTOS PROVIDED BY GRIPPLE

OLE Rail Dropper

n its final determination of Network Rail’s funding for Control Period 7 (2024-2029) (CP7), the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) says Network Rail must continue its efficiency initiatives to deliver the ambitious CP7 plan, and to deliver the best value within the available funding for CP7. The ORR also says the efficiency target of at least £3.2 billion is stretching and realistic. Network Rail has therefore set itself a renewal (capital expenditure) target of 15% and says the supply chain is key to delivery of this target. This will require challenging how everything is done and finding new suppliers and new ways of doing things.

This must be done carefully though, and there are many examples of the rail industry using suppliers and items new to rail that, while initially appearing to offer advantages and cost savings, eventually failed to offer the anticipated benefits. This is why the Product Approval process is required. The approval process can be lengthy and appear bureaucratic, and put some suppliers off, but a good example of something new which has recently been approved and offers great benefits is the Gripple SwiftLine Rail Dropper for Overhead Line Equipment (OLE).

OLE DROPPER In rail electrification, the OLE dropper hangs vertically from the catenary at regular intervals. The catenary is the longitudinal wire which supports the contact wire via the droppers. The contact wire carries the electric current to the train via a train’s pantograph.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

OLE maintenance possession windows are never long enough. So Gripple’s innovation team used its considerable experience with mechanical suspended solutions, and collaborated closely with rail OLE engineers and contractors, to develop the game changing SwiftLine Rail Dropper. This has been designed to be faster, safer, and easier to install than conventional OLE droppers. The dropper is supplied pre-cut and ready to go, therefore it can be installed quicker with no cutting or measuring required on site. The easy to use, plug and play, tool free design delivers a faster installation and offers reduced safety risk with less time working at height in the dark, which is when most of this work usually takes place. The SwiftLine Rail Dropper can be fully installed up to eight times faster than traditional cable droppers and can then be adjusted left and right along the wire in seconds, using the lockable release cams, rapidly increasing the speed and efficiency of installation and repairs.

Gripple AutoTorque Contact Clamp Fixing

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

GRIPPLE Gripple is a manufacturer of wire joiners and tensioners used for construction suspension, catenary systems, trellising, and civil engineering as well as various engineered solutions for other infrastructure applications. The company employs over 1,000 people in 15 global locations and manufactures across seven sites in Sheffield, South Yorkshire. The company was named Manufacturer of the Year at the Manufacturer MX Awards (TMMX) in 2022. Featuring 50 of Britain’s top manufacturing companies, the Awards encourage, benchmark, and celebrate manufacturing excellence. Gripple also came away with further awards, including Young Manufacturer of the Year 2022. With additional manufacturing and sales hubs located in Chicago, Obernai, Warsaw, Toronto, New Delhi, and Kobe, Gripple is a 100% employeeowned company, with a strong focus on investing in people, innovation, and sustainable growth. In 2011, GLIDE was established, which is an employee-owned company representing employee owners at Gripple and its partner companies, Loadhog and GoTools. Founder and chair, Hugh Facey OBE, alongside vice Chair, Roger Hall, agreed to donate a significant portion of their shares into GLIDE, as part of the process of passing the company to the employees. Employee-owned through a direct ownership model, every employee is required to buy a minimum of £1,000 worth of shares after a year in the business. GLIDE’s elected board of representatives have a number of core objectives; to protect and enhance the culture, to be custodians of GLIDE’s gifted shares, and decide on the best way to share dividend income with members, and to challenge the businesses in line with key performance principles, e.g. targeting sustainable business growth through innovation in new products and new markets. Employee owners are empowered to take responsibility for the business, to challenge and to ask questions, and ensure the business sustains for the long term benefit of current and future generations, and its customers.

SwiftLine Rail Dropper Catenary Fixing

Gripple Design engineers working on rail dropper concepts

RAIL DROPPER DEVELOPMENT Gripple had previous experience of working in the rail industry when it had used its ground anchors solution as a method of stabilising embankments. While working on these projects, it noticed many similarities between the problems OLE installers were having and problems it had already solved in the building services sector. When attending site, it could see the issues with OLE droppers and identified that Network Rail was also looking for a solution. Gripple started to investigate whether its technology could benefit OLE installations, in the same way it had done for catenary suspension in the other markets. Gripple’s findings gave confidence that it could improve how rail droppers were installed and make the process much quicker, safer, and more efficient. The University of Sheffield, a part of the UK Rail Innovation Network (UKRIIN) was approached to find out more about the rail industry’s challenges with electrification. This and other research, confirmed that installing rail droppers was one of the most timeconsuming aspects of a rail project and one of the reasons that electrification rollout had been slow. Nine design engineers brainstormed ideas and produced 20 concept ideas and drawings. These early concept ideas were presented to a group of industry experts, consisting of Network Rail employees, OLE contractors, and consultants. This allowed Gripple to design a product to meet Network Rail’s needs. The three concepts were selected to be carried forward and developed. While developing the solution, regular meetings with rail industry stakeholders were organised to ensure the solution

was steered in the right direction, based on the user requirements. Using their in-house 3D printers, Gripple was able to incorporate the feedback into the development and allow stakeholders to get ‘hands-on’ with the 3D printed prototypes of the product as the design progressed. As further development took place, regular feedback was sought from OHL rail engineers and contractors. Once everyone was happy, a ‘concept freeze’ was initiated and the chosen concept was taken into the detailed design stage, allowing Gripple to work alongside Network Rail to ‘fine tune’ the product. This would ensure the product was as beneficial as possible for the customer and efficient to manufacture.

CHALLENGES One design challenge was the contact clamp torque. Historically, installers had experienced problems with the contact clamp not being set to the correct torque, as it had to be installed and set manually using a nut and bolt and hand tools to provide the clamping force. This was susceptible to user error. To address this Gripple developed their auto-torque contact clamp to guarantee ‘right first-time installation. This uses a lever which provides a pre-set clamping force so that the right torque was guaranteed every time. Another challenge was to improve the speed of installations while still creating a fully conductive product. The design engineers developed the Gripple Volt Lock system, which is housed within the catenary wire top dropper and includes a roller which both grips the dropper wire and ensures constant contact with the copper housing of the product. This makes the product fully conductive.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

PRODUCTION Once the final product design was agreed, Gripple made a business decision to invest and put the dropper into production. Product managers and product designers worked with the dedicated new product implementation team, which co-ordinated the production and launch with other departments within the company. The next stage of product development was to identify the machinery and tools to produce the product, and develop plans for manufacturing and conduct trials. The operations teams undertook pilot build and packing trials, as well as finalising the production and manufacturing processes. Product managers tested the dropper product in a real-world environment at a Network Rail sites. Once this was completed satisfactorily, the innovation team and new product implementation team handed the product designs over to production. The Norfolk Bridge Works in Sheffield was selected to carry out the bulk of the production as it had the largest capacity. Punch and press brake tools were both already in operation at the site to produce Gripple products already used in the construction industry. This meant that existing processes could be adapted to produce the SwiftLine Rail Dropper, rather than waiting for the delivery of completely new machinery. Final assembly would then take place at Gripple Head Office at the Old West Gun Works in Sheffield. The Norfolk Bridge Works opened in 2021 as a modern manufacturing facility and features 442 solar panels, a green living wall, as well as a smart building management system. The Old West Gun Works became the Gripple headquarters in 1994 and the iconic building now houses wire rope and sling manufacture, packing and distribution, as well as IT, finance, supply chain, and people & culture teams. ‘Vertical integration’ is a key driver at Gripple and the company aims to manufacture and control as much as possible in-house. This includes the machines that produce products and gives Gripple greater control over their supply chain, helping to provide continuity to customers and protecting from external supply pressures.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

For the SwiftLine Rail Dropper, Gripple worked with its sister company GoTools, which specialises in precision tooling and machinery. GoTools was able to quickly produce the required tooling, which allowed Gripple to meet the market’s timeframe requirements.

TESTING While the tooling was being produced, quality and testing teams worked together to ensure all the testing needed to meet Network Rail’s standards was in place. The product surpassed both the mechanical and electrical tests needed to meet the requirements laid out in BS EN 50119. As well as the tests needed to meet Network Rail’s standards, additional testing was also undertaken to ensure Gripple were completely satisfied with the product. Salt spray and UV tests were undertaken to prove the product’s performance was sustained after exposure to the elements. High and low temperature tests (including an ice expansion test) were also undertaken to prove that the product can continue to perform in harsh environments. Cyclic tests were undertaken beyond the Network Rail standard to prove the product’s longevity.

SUMMARY Electrification has the potential to be a big contributor towards the UK meeting its environmental targets, and Gripple says the new SwiftLine Rail Dropper has the potential to revolutionise OLE installation and allow Network Rail and its contractors to significantly speed up the electrification rollout. Gripple is confident that its ‘game changing’ SwiftLine Rail Dropper is faster, safer, and easier to install than anything else on the market. Minimal product training is needed to use the easy-to-use, tool-free dropper. This makes projects simpler and safer thanks to less time spent working at height or in the dark. All this allows better control of electrification projects, getting more done in every possession window, and even bringing forward project completion dates.

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

Arthur Flury forked collar sockets and conical couplers Holding the OLE securely for more than 50 years around the world, forked collar sockets and conical couplers from Arthur Flury are embedded in all of the UK’s electrified routes. The cone holds the conductor tight and engineering tests have consistently verified that the conductor will break before slipping from the cone. Manufactured in our ISO9001 appoved factory, Arthur Flury forked collar sockets and conical couplers hold full product acceptance with Network Rail and are included in OLEMI, Series 2 and Series 1 catenary designs. Please contact our Milton Keynes office for further information.

aﬂury.co.uk

info@aﬂury.co.uk

Arthur Flury (UK) LTD

RailStaff has been championing the rail industry’s workforce since 1997. We cover stories that celebrate the great achievements of staff. Such is the freely-distributed magazine’s success that the only industrywide 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

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

Sparking the Midlands ©NETWORK RAIL

Previous overhead line equipment being installed

PETER STANTON

he Midland Main Line is a significant railway route in England, running from London to Sheffield in Yorkshire via the East Midlands. It comprises the lines from London’s St Pancras International station via Leicester, Derby/Nottingham, and Chesterfield. Express passenger services on the line are operated by East Midlands Railway. The line hosts a London suburban commuting service pattern to Bedford with a not insignificant freight flow on the route, focusing on a major aggregate operation at Mountsorrel. Rail Engineer covered an Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ conference in June 2013. That event looked at the emerging national plan for railway electrification and, in particular, the proposals for electrification of the Midland Main Line onward to Sheffield. The well-developed outline proposals were presented by the then Network Rail route delivery director; supported by a robust technical strategy. Unfortunately, the onward development was ‘paused’ by the Department of Transport resulting in a serious loss of momentum as contractors demobilised. More promisingly, on 18 November 2021, the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) was published stating that electrification of the whole line would take place. Rail Engineer previously revisited the subject in April 2021 with an optimistic view of the delivery of new rolling stock and an anticipation of electrification through the entire route to Sheffield and Nottingham.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

STOPS AND STARTS The position in 2021 had stopped at electrification of the main line onward from Bedford to Kettering and the branch to Corby. However, currently, despite the ‘pauses’, we find the electrification work, led by SPL Powerlines, has progressed towards Market Harborough with much equipment installed and the route infrastructure adapted to suit. The choice of this route section addition lies in the fact that the bulk supply point was commissioned at Braybrooke as part of the full route-long electrification scheme. It is noted that Braybrooke feeder station is needed to support the now commissioned London to Corby (L2C) scheme in 2021. The current feeder station at Long Meadow Farm, which replaced Sundon Feeder Station, feeds the existing Mk3b OLE equipment all the way to Corby via Kettering. The current traction system

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

WORK UNDER WAY While the route electrification appears to proceed piecemeal there is much active and positive work under way, and Rail Engineer was pleased to be invited to SPL Powerlines’ administrative and technical base at Leicester, in order to hear about current progress and the positive developments within the current works. The Midland Main Line activities are delivered through the Leicester base, one of the major construction depots at Cookes Cattle Arch. The current K2W scheme is a route of 37 route kilometres comprising of 76 STK, with three new substations and two new neutral sections being installed. Attention has been paid within the design to operational flexibility with the use of powered trackside switches where their cost can be justified.

SPL Powerlines UK Limited is a leading independent overhead line equipment provider with both a Principal Contractor’s Licence and a Plant Operators Licence. The business provides turnkey overhead lines capabilities from design, through installation and commissioning, to final testing. The company operates both within the main line heavy rail and the mass transit sector. The company is headquartered at Coatbridge in Scotland. As principal contractor, SPL is appointed as the lead design organisation for the current route electrification works and is also providing the construction input. This includes route clearance works north of Kettering. SPL effectively forms the ‘Hub’ for the project. SPL is also undertaking all project assurance including integration, CSM, and dispositioned traditional client-based roles like project engineers (under the Agile Client Eastern proposals).

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

for L2C is not sufficient for more than two electric trains per hour. The Kettering and South Wigston (K2W) scheme ensures that the power, notably the voltage loss at Corby, is rebalanced with Braybrooke feeder station being brought online, and allows the new Class 810 from East Midlands Railway to maximise the use of clean overhead line equipment to power their trains. The construction process now advancing with works to continue the electrification equipment installation northwards as far as South Wigston, near Leicester. In addition to the new construction, attention has been focused on the performance of existing Mk3b overhead contact system equipment South of Bedford. This was installed for the Bedford / St. Pancras scheme in the 1980s and was not designed for the highspeed running required for the developing, main route, Inter City style of service, frequency, and speed. SPL is to support the proposed six electric trains per hour and line speed increases to 125mph (or greater than the maximum 90mph an electric multiple unit currently runs on the old Mk3b equipment). That scope forms enhanced renewal, and SPL is proposing to develop a new overhead line system to support more trains and enhanced line speed. To offer greater resilience, this will be done by increasing contact wire tension and changing to 120mm contact wire from the worn 107mm conductor and changing the catenary from the existing Mk3b AWAC to the new preferred Bz11.

Overhead line equipment ready to be installed between Market Harborough and Wigston

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

SITE VISIT AND MEETING Rail Engineer was pleased to be invited to the SPL Midland Main Line project offices at Cannock Street near Leicester and was able to listen to a presentation on the works currently under way between Market Harborough and Kettering, including the bulk supply point at Braybrooke. The presentation clarified the scope of the project and revealed that works were now authorised as far north as South Wigston near Leicester. South of Bedford, the scope of the works includes route upgrades for speed improvement and flexibility of working, in addition to electrification. This is the preferred method of approaching electrification, that is, to rationalise the route first. The Minimum Viable Project philosophy has been applied to signalling immunisation, where the signalling scope is to support the electrification. While there is always concern that the costs of electrification projects may increase if they are required to upgrade other lifeexpired infrastructure on the route, this project has focused on true cost in the electrification ground and so is only undertaking immunisation signalling works. The multi-million-pound programme supports the Government’s ambitions for decarbonisation and aims to deliver a greener, more reliable railway to connect passengers right the way between London and Sheffield, via Nottingham and Derby.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

The phase of major work will see electrification around a 20km section between Market Harborough and South Wigston brought up to speed to eventually connect the entire route, following recent upgrades further south. Much of the work is undertaken overnight while there are no trains running to keep railway workers safe and to keep disruption to a minimum. However, advantage is also taken of the ability to install equipment at weekends where diversions may take place via the alternative route through Melton Mowbray. The visit was moved on to visit the construction site at Cooks Cattle Arch, alongside the main line. The base was formed to function as a base for the route electrification work with pre-assembly sites, welfare facilities, and material stores on site. The site was also the base for a significant fleet of very impressive plant that was conveniently based near the route works. The site was very comprehensively equipped and of particular interest was the pre installation assembly work. SPL explained that it planned to minimise the work to be undertaken directly on the railway infrastructure with pre-preparation on the construction depot site. A major function undertaken there was the attachment of the small part steel work to electrification structures, supported by other works even including the structure identification plates. This off-track work was heavily maximised for safety and productivity reasons. Such techniques, and the agile use of plant is part of SPL’s High Output production philosophy.

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

The site is particularly well laid out to allow safe working and movement of vehicles and plant. Also extremely noteworthy is the energy management on the site. With the aid of portable solar panel units, the operations can be claimed to be completely carbon neutral, lighting and power supplies being supported by natural energy. In case of loss of this source, a generator is available to ensure continuity of work, but the use of that plant is rarely required. A further arrangement of note is the methodology of handling electrification equipment prior to site erection. Where possible, the use of craneage is avoided by creating ‘stillages’ of units which can be handled on site by forklift truck and can be placed aboard construction rail mounted plant in the same manner. As much as possible was stored on prearranged stillages minimising handling both in the depot and on site. Of note was the rationalisation of electrification structure piles and pile caps to minimise stocks. Piling is now the preferred method of electrification structure installation; the piles being driven by dedicated piling plant. This avoids the downsides of the earlier methodologies of grabbed excavation and concrete with its less than positive impact on the environment. The project has a ‘2 type’ of foundation approach, 610mm circular hollow section steel piles (CHS610) and a 1-metre concrete Augers. Through the project’s continuous development, with over 3,500 foundations installed, SPL has ensured that 90% of the foundations are 610CHS piles. The K2W foundations have now been completed months before energisation. This is unprecedented on large scale electrification projects and a real success of design & construction collaboration. For the construction base, much emphasis had been focused on social issues, and awareness of neighbours and stakeholders had led to minimising the generation of noise and other nuisance. Good communication had also helped to build a productive relationship during the project, supporting an excellent model for the industry. Considerable investment in road / rail access plant is a signature for modern electrification construction; particularly impressive was the longreach access platform and the large Zeck plant accompanying the traditional SRS machine; an investment of over a million pounds.

TRACTION ELECTRICAL POWER GRID INTAKE The site visits were completed by a transfer to the grid traction power supply intake site and the connection from the high voltage national distribution power lines was clear to be seen. Considerable work had been undertaken here by National Grid, and the accompanying intake substation at the lineside was a significant piece of infrastructure investment.

The original traction power distribution design had been put together to feed the route-wide electrification proposals and had been planned as an exceedingly early item. It should be noted that electrification traction power supplies were a strategic issue and once planned could not easily be altered: a national strategy for the future is a real requirement. This is one that the project has been modelling for a number of years, based on both the 2040 and the 2050 Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) requirements, with and without HS2!

SCOPE ISSUES There is considerable debate over the cost of electrification and during the discussions SPL showed that it was very much alive to the issue. To that end, much effort was being placed into identifying scope which was not part of the electrification works. For instance, it is felt correcting existing non-compliances should not be charged to the core electrification project but separately identified. This awareness is to be congratulated. Within electrification scope, but not to be discounted, were items such as electrical bonding, with some 2,000 bonds being required: a low visibility but not insignificant workload and to be undertaken directly on the running rail infrastructure. This includes lineside fencing to ensure that GRP fencing panels are being installed at strategic positions along the route. The electrification system is not just a mechanical one:

The works generate a significant amount of testing; again, contributing to electrification cost. National Technical Specification Notices are a major factor also. Associated with these requirements, the project team emphasised the volume of ‘paperwork’ to be generated to enable entry into service but described some very robust systems to enable effective control and minimise bureaucracy. The maximum opportunity had been taken to utilise digitisation and minimise the hard copy paperwork. Finally, the team were pleased to say they had a productive relationship with the route maintenance organisation and had enabled successful direct access to the project group.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION

OTHE PARTNERS

In conjunction with SPL’s work on stakeholder and neighbour relations, for its part Network Rail is piloting a new way to keep people who live next to the railway in parts of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire better informed about upcoming work that might affect them. The programme team are sending paperwork notification calendars to lineside neighbours and stakeholders. These give details of upcoming work in the Kettering and Wigston areas. The calendars will be accompanied by a letter, which gives details on how to sign up to receive future calendars digitally, and how to access a new interactive map. Gavin Crook, principal programme sponsor has pointed out: “Our new digital notification system will help us provide residents with accessible, clearer, accurate information in a timely way. “Although people can still choose to receive their notifications by post, we’re hopeful that most will sign up to the digital mailing list.”

SPL emphasised that, while it was leading the project, other partners should be acknowledged. For instance, AtkinsRéalis had been developing the Approval in Principle ES 4 dealing with design, and Van Elle was a key sub-contractor partnership to support the electrification structure piling. For the section between Market Harborough and South Wigston, the route clearance works would be undertaken by Story & AMCO. Notwithstanding the significant infrastructure works under way, there is also a new fleet of trains on the horizon: the Class 810 from Hitachi. The rolling stock design and commissioning will be closely allied to the infrastructure works and Rail Engineer will be observing and reporting on the stock as testing, commissioning, and delivery progresses. The project gives a real feeling of progress in the application of the vitally needed electrification of our railway system; a positive demonstration that the industry can deliver and succeed! One can anticipate we will eventually see the new trains running under wires for the whole of this vital route!!

Many thanks are due to SPL Powerlines and its people, especially Annette White and Simon Skinner. Rail Engineer hopes to follow the project through with a final completed view of wires all the way to Sheffield and Nottingham. Thanks also go to Network Rail for permission to work with its contractor on the preparation of this article.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

SPL POWERLINES UK

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

Royston electrification: first zero emission work completed Network Rail engineers working on the overhead line equipment at Royston

DAVID FENNER

©Network Rail

uring early October the Eastern region of Network Rail completed its first zero emissions engineering work.

The engineering work was associated with renewal and upgrade of the overhead line equipment through, and either side of, Royston station, involving the replacement of components supporting the catenary and contact wires. Many of the parts being replaced dated from 1978 and were therefore 45 years old. This work was scheduled to be completed over four successive night time possessions of both the up and down lines through the area. The work was successfully completed with zero carbon emissions by the use of novel welfare facilities and of hybrid, on-track machines which relied on battery power throughout the work. Hamish Critchell-Ward, environment manager for the Eastern Region of Network Rail, outlined the objectives of piloting zero emissions working which forms part of plans to get to net zero by 2050. This particular site had been chosen as it fulfilled a number of the requirements for a first trial of zero emissions and low carbon working. These included the scale of the work and the relative accessibility of the site. The whole site was supported by an 80kWh battery that provided power for the welfare facilities and recharged the on-track machines ready for each of the four overnight possessions. The 80kWh battery had itself been charged off-site, using a large solar array, prior to being transported to Royston for the establishment of the worksite.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

On-site lighting around the welfare facilities was provided by battery supported, solar charged, LED tower lights whilst lighting for the work was again provided by battery powered LEDs. In addition, the other tools used were battery operated and all consumable materials were recyclable.

CARBON COSTS Hamish identified that currently such working has a slightly higher initial cost, fundamentally due to the battery and its support arrangements, but there are a number of hidden costs associated with diesel generators that ameliorate this. They include not requiring diesel fuel to be brought to site, with associated risks of spillage and containment, and the costs of topping up if required. In addition, the battery is claimed to function over 4,500 recharge cycles which, even at a daily recharge rate, would equate to around 12 years working life. A diesel generator is likely to require several maintenance visits over that period adding significantly to its whole life cost. In practice the battery on site had commenced operation at around 90% charge and, after providing power to the worksite welfare facilities and charging the hybrid on-track machines for the duration of the work, still had 28% capacity remaining at the end.

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

on-tracking through movement to site, working, and return to off tracking, in battery mode. Thus, no diesel fuel was used as part of the work. Pro Rail services prides itself on innovation and sustainability, especially leading to a low carbon worksite, and this was a useful project to demonstrate these capabilities with modern on track plant. The machines themselves have an articulated and telescopic boom lift with a cage capable of holding up to three people and maximum operating weight of 400kg. The hybrid version has a 400Ah lithium battery driving two 5KW AC electric motors. The battery can support movement over a maximum of 12km, or over shorter distances combined with lifting and working as required. There is an onboard battery management system to control the battery operation and provide an onboard display of the current battery condition. As hybrid units they are also equipped with a diesel engine designed to use HVO fuel and a hydraulic pump able to operate the machine functions and, if necessary, complete off tracking.

A QUIETER SOLUTION

A SUCCESS STORY

Other benefits of using battery power included the use of some of the first hybrid, on-track machines. As hybrids, these have both a diesel engine and a battery suitable for relatively short distance movement. On this site they were able to be restricted to batteryonly operation with very marked reductions in noise. Indeed, the loudest element of the work was the warning sound that beeped whenever the unit was moving. The fact that the welfare site was also battery powered meant no need for a grid connection or the alternative of a diesel generator, with a further reduction in noise. This has the added benefit of reducing disturbance to railway neighbours, especially during night works, and thus reduces the risk of work being curtailed due to complaints.

Overall, the work at Royston demonstrated that working towards a low emission environment with battery electric systems can deliver significant benefits and is already achievable for the right project scope. Indeed, it is estimated the use of battery energy storage at Royston saved around 750 litres of diesel fuel which delivered a saving of around 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. With ongoing developments in the technology, especially battery capacity, much more can and will be achieved in the near future.

SUPPLIERS Vanguard Services Limited (VSL) provided the welfare facilities in the north car park at Royston station. These were supplied with energy from the 80kWh battery with associated external LED lighting, equipped with their own battery supply recharged using solar panels and small wind turbines. The hybrid on-track machines used for the actual overhead line work were recharged during the day, again from the 80kWh battery in the compound area. Genista Energy, based in Dundee, supplied two products from its range to VSL to support the work at Royston. Gadget Gen80, one of its mobile battery storage systems, stored the necessary energy to power the welfare facilities, provided the welfare area lighting, and delivered the power to the Electric Vehicle Charging System which recharged the hybrid on-track machines, also supplied by Genista. Both products are suitable for delivery to site, even relatively remote sites as may be found trackside. The entire operation was therefore able to work off-grid and demonstrated that being off-grid need not be a challenge even when vehicles need to be recharged. Neither of the Genista products have any moving parts and, being relatively new, they are fully equipped with remote monitoring systems that facilitate management and supervision from afar. The on-track plant was provided by Pro Rail Services based in Welwyn Garden City. They provided four hybrid MWEP/RR14 EVO-2-400 machines that successfully completed all work, from

Structural Precast for Railways

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

Collision at

Salisbury Tunnel Junction October 2021 Aftermath: the two trains and the extreme vegetation at the tunnel. The approach to the tunnel was mostly similar.

WHAT HAPPENED At approximately 18:43 hrs on 31 October 2021, on a day that had been exceptionally windy and immediately after a localised period of drizzle, South Western Railway (SWR) passenger train 1L53, the 17:20 hrs from London Waterloo to Honiton, passed a red signal and collided with the side of Great Western Railway (GWR) passenger train 1F30, the 17:08 hrs service from Portsmouth Harbour to Bristol Temple Meads. At the point of collision, the SWR train was travelling at approximately 52mph and the GWR train at 20mph. The collision took place at Salisbury Tunnel Junction, which is on the immediate approach to Fisherton Tunnel, near Salisbury in Wiltshire. Scan the QR code for an animation showing the paths of the trains involved.

The collision caused the front two coaches of the SWR train and the rear two carriages of the GWR train to derail. Both continued into Fisherton Tunnel for some distance before coming to a stop. Thirteen passengers and the SWR train’s driver required in-hospital treatment as a result of the accident. There was also significant damage to the trains and railway infrastructure involved. A potentially far more serious collision between the SWR train and an earlier train which was travelling in the opposite direction and crossed over the path of the SWR train was avoided by less than a minute. Diagram showing train speeds, the nature of the land and key landmarks (bridge and signals) approaching Fisherton Tunnel

LOW ADHESION MALCOLM DOBELL

Heavily contaminated railhead

Rail Engineer has reported extensively about work to manage the effects of leaf fall on the railway. When leaves fall on the track, the movement of trains tends to roll them between the wheels and rails forming a black film that is very slippery when wet and insulates when dry. This means that wet contaminated rails exhibit poor adhesion (values can be as low as 0.02µ), leading to difficulty in applying power and much longer stopping distances. Dry, contaminated rails are less slippery but can lead to wrong side track circuit failures (occupied blocks can appear to be unoccupied). Clearing

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

the trees can eliminate the problem almost completely. Rail head treatment trains (RHTT) can be used to blast the leaf film with water jets at a pressure of 1000-1500 bar, sometimes with the use of an adhesion traction enhancing sand/gel treatment applied from the RHTT or trackside. Mitigations include speed restrictions, signage to identify high risk areas, and instructing drivers to use defensive driving (brake earlier and more lightly). Train features such as better wheelslide protection and various forms of sanding can improve stopping distances. Each site has its own individual features and the weather introduces additional variables, especially wind and rain. This makes day-today operational risk management a multidimensional task that requires specialist technical skills and the ability to coordinate with the many organisations/departments involved.

FEATURE

n February this year, Andrew Hall, chief inspector of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), gave a keynote address at Rail Media’s Rail Safety Summit with the title: ‘Rarely is Not Quite Never’. He could almost have been thinking of the collision at Salisbury Tunnel Junction, where, according to the RAIB’s interim statements, a significant factor was low adhesion caused by damp leaf film on the rails. The railway community puts in a huge amount of effort each year to manage adhesion problems during the autumn leaf fall season, and although there are wrong side failures (SPADS, station overruns, etc), it is rare for there to be a collision. Although the Salisbury collision was serious, it could have been a whole lot worse, as a third train cleared the junction just one minute before the two-train collision. This was described in the 113page report published by RAIB

in late October 2023, just before the second anniversary of the collision. The final RAIB report discusses the many controls and mitigations the industry uses to manage the risk of a collision in low wheel/rail adhesion conditions and how almost all failed on 31 October 2021. RAIB concluded that the causes of the collision were: A) Wheel/rail adhesion was very low in the area where the driver of the SWR train applied its brakes, because: » there was leaf contamination on the railhead, resulting from the weather conditions on the day of the accident and since the last rail head treatment run. » the impact of the leaf contamination had been made worse by a band of drizzle that occurred immediately before the SWR train passed. » there was an increased density of vegetation in the area and, » Network Rail’s Wessex route had not effectively mitigated the railhead contamination. Fisherton Tunnel approach

1967

PHOTO: CRÉCY PUBLISHING

2021

1970

B) The driver did not apply the train’s brakes early enough when approaching the signal protecting the junction to avoid running on to it, given the low level of adhesion. C) The braking systems on the SWR train were not capable of mitigating this very low adhesion. This article summarises the key points and conclusions in RAIB’s roughly 36,000 word report. Anyone wanting more detail should read the full report.

The report discusses the actions of members of staff in Network Rail management in operations and maintenance, SWR management, and the driver of the SWR train. As is normal process, RAIB discusses each area in turn.

VEGETATION Before arriving at the conclusions in point A), RAIB discussed the actions of Network Rail (NR). It noted how vegetation on the route taken by the SWR train had significantly increased since the last days of steam and the early days of diesel operation (1967-73). It examined processes for identifying and assessing the risk posed by lineside trees and foliage, and processes for planning and carrying out clearance, before assessing whether and how well they had been complied with. The investigation identified several issues with process between 2018 and 2021. It also found that that no action had been taken to manage the vegetation over the approaches to the accident site, yet the risk scores had not changed despite the vegetation continuing to grow. RAIB said this called into question the robustness of the process. Other issues such as the output of inspections not being entered into NR’s Ellipse asset management system were also identified. It described how the organisational relationships between the various departments within Network Rail were supposed to work and the standards applicable to managing, preparing, and collaborating internally and with the train operator in planning and responding to autumn and low adhesion incidents. use QR code to see organisation charts.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

RAIB identified issues with how this worked in practice and also with standards, processes, skills/competence, and people shortages. For the managing lineside foliage process, RAIB said that the standards were complex and seemed aimed at both postponing work and being insufficiently precise which allowed inspection results to stay the same while the foliage becomes more overgrown. It also identified some lack of competence and experience, difficulty in organising contractors to carry out work, and difficulty in getting access, compounded by the ban on red zone working. The report recognised that it is not practical to eliminate leaf film on rails and described many of the techniques the industry has developed to clean the railhead, either with railhead treatment trains (RHTT) or lineside adhesion gel applicators. RHTTs were scheduled to run on this section twice a day during the week and once a day at weekends. Fewer runs at weekends were reported to be the result of weekend engineering work disrupting RHTT diagrams, but it was clear that the risk is just as acute at weekends as on weekdays. On the day of the collision, the RHTT had not run. RAIB explained that staff in the Wessex Integrated Control Centre (WICC) could call for additional runs in response to reports of low adhesion but hadn’t realised the area was at risk that day despite the windy weather. WICC could also call on Mobile Operations Managers (MOM) to carry out inspections of the railhead in high-risk areas, and RAIB reported that such an inspection had been called for, but no MOMs were available. It added, however, that MOMs had reported that they were unable to work trackside without a line blockage and had been asked to assess rail head condition from overbridges and lineside fencing, an exercise MOMs thought was of very limited value.

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY RAIB commented that the requirement to inform drivers about low adhesion and for drivers to feedback about low adhesion was not being consistently followed, illustrating this with a photograph of a low adhesion notice in comparatively small type on a noticeboard behind glass and with comments from other drivers that they did not have enough time to study all the notices. The train in question was a three-car class 159, although it should have been a sixcar/two-unit train. Longer trains generally deliver better braking performance on poor adhesion than short ones.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

THE DRIVER RAIB’s conclusion that the driver braked too late was based on analysis of the SWR train’s On-Train Data Recorder (ODTR) and interviews with the incident train’s driver and other drivers who operate class 159 units on this line.

Annotated OTDR trace from the SWR trains showing braking and AWS/TPWS activations and acknowledgments

The analysis, from this and other trains, showed that the driver, having seen the double yellow at signal SY29R, braked much later than he usually did and later than other train drivers on that route. During the high winds earlier that day, a tree had fallen on the line to the southwest of Broken Cross bridge which the driver observed on the way up to Waterloo (during daylight). The driver explained that when he saw the double yellow signal, he thought there would be low adhesion at the site of the fallen tree, so he decided to look for the tree and brake immediately after it. But it was dark, and he missed the tree and only initiated braking in step 1 over a mile after SY29R. He rapidly increased the brake rate to step 3, the maximum rate, before selecting emergency brake shortly after. The train’s wheel slide protection and sanding were unable to provide the deceleration rate required in the low adhesion conditions caused by the leaf film and the drizzle that passed over the area shortly before the SWR train approached. In simple terms, when all the other risk controls had failed, the driver - the last line of defence - made a mistake, leading to the collision.

SIGNAL SPACING But it wasn’t quite as simple as that. RAIB found that the 3.1 km between signals SY29R and SY31on the approach to Salisbury Tunnel Junction provided an excessive braking distance for passenger trains, meaning that drivers must delay full braking until after they have passed the double yellow aspect signal (SY29R), otherwise they could stop short of the red signal (ST31) and/or incur time delays on their journey. The driver involved in the collision said he would normally have started braking at Broken Cross bridge. However, on 21 October 2021, the driver decided to brake at the fallen tree, 250 metres beyond the bridge, but, having failed to see the tree, only started braking approximately 1,000 metres beyond the bridge. The current applicable standards are RIS-0703-CCS and NR/L2/SIG/30009/D220 which states: “If the distance is significantly greater than the minimum then this may lead to drivers continuing at the permissible speed and trying to judge when to brake with the risk of SPAD, or braking early and coasting leading to an increase in journey time or loss of capacity.”

FEATURE

Although these standards recognise the risk, the signalling approaching Salisbury Tunnel Junction pre-dates those standards, and there was no requirement for retrospective action.

ACTIONS SINCE THE COLLISION

PHOTO: RSSB

In the two years between the collision and the publication of the RAIB report, lessons have been learned and actions agreed. RAIB reported that a joint internal industry investigation was carried out which recommended actions for Network Rail and SWR. These actions broadly align with RAIB’s own, described below. Other industry bodies including GWR, RSSB, the Seasonal Challenge Steering Group, and the Rail Delivery Group also carried out a number of actions. An item not seen elsewhere in the report is the plan to fit Single Variable Rate Sanders to the SWR class 159 fleet. This modification can reduce the braking distance of trains in low adhesion conditions.

In December 2021, ORR issued an Improvement Notice to Network Rail requiring it to carry out a number of improvements that broadly correspond to RAIB’s recommendations. ORR had reported that Network Rail had complied with the notice and “taken action to manage the risk from adverse railhead conditions caused by leaf fall”. The actions taken include: » Engaging with stakeholders and reviewing data to update risk assessments and identify new and existing sites at high risk of low adhesion. » Targeted vegetation removal work at the highest risk sites. » Implementing changes to the railhead treatment programme including revised treatment circuits and speed, and trialling new treatment products. » Strengthening mitigation processes when railhead treatment is missed. » Briefing autumn working arrangements to relevant people. The arrangements include inspecting high-risk sites and auditing railhead treatment effectiveness. » Strengthening assurance arrangements for autumn management. » Planning future engineering works around the railhead treatment circuits and trialling new technology to identify railhead contamination.

RAIB RECOMMENDATIONS RAIB made 10 recommendations, the text of which is too long to publish here. Instead, we have quoted the intent of each recommendation and the organisation(s) to which each was addressed (See Table). Recommendation 10 needs explanation. This article has not discussed the structural performance of the trains during the collision, nor the evacuation, but recommendation 10 relates to the difficulty some passengers had in opening biparting interior power doors on one of the class 159 coaches.

No.

Recommendation Intent:

Addressed to:

To have autumn working arrangements that more effectively manage low adhesion risk, as a result of leaf fall.

Network Rail

To have seasons delivery specialists that are more effective in managing Network Rail’s seasonal risk

Network Rail

That off track staff are sufficiently competent and confident to undertake the tasks assigned to them by Network Rail standards.

Network Rail

To be able to make more effective decisions regarding the management of emerging and potential low wheel/rail adhesion conditions.

Network Rail

To improve wheel/rail adhesion conditions through the application of improved understanding of the effectiveness of railhead treatment regimes.

Network Rail

To enable the effective assessment by Network Rail of the risk of overrun at signals which have HRLA sites on their approach.

Network Rail

To reduce the risk of overrunning signals at danger where there is a line speed change on the approach after the preliminary caution signal.

Network Rail

Drivers to be able to identify areas of low adhesion and report them, if appropriate.

The industry to realise the potential benefits of future technologies to enable trains to better cope with low wheel/rail adhesion when braking.

To minimise the risk that passengers are unable to evacuate from class 158 and 159 carriages.

South Western Railway

Rail Delivery Group

Porterbrook, Angel Trains, and Eversholt Rail

Please follow the QR code for a full bibliography

CONCLUSION RAIB’s in-depth report identified the many risk controls that contribute to the safety of the railway in autumn, low adhesion conditions, and, in most cases, found fault with the application of these controls. It is to be hoped that this accident has been a wake-up call for increased vigilance, competence, and attention to detail. One omission appears to be any recommendation aimed at significantly reducing the quantity of trees and other foliage around the railway to largely eliminate the risk of low adhesion at source. Comparing images from 50 years ago with today it seems that, in many areas, open countryside has been replaced by tunnels of trees. Perhaps it concluded that the task of so doing is too great? Illustrations copyright RAIB unless otherwise stated

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

PHOTO: RAIB

FEATURE

Nothing went wrong –

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

except poor adhesion

PHOTO: RAIB

DAVID SHIRRES

Wheel flats were approximately 290 mm long and 25 mm deep

n 19 October 2022, five 100-tonne cement tank wagons were derailed at Petteril Bridge Junction in Carlisle. Two of these fell off the bridge with one landing upside down in the river. No one was injured and very little cement was spilled, though the track and bridge suffered significant damage. Due to this, and the difficulties of erecting a suitable crane close enough to the derailed wagons, the lines from Carlisle to Newcastle and Settle were blocked for seven weeks. Immediately after the derailment, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) advised that it was ‘almost certainly’ caused by a wheelset having large flats and, consequently, false flanges passing through switches at the junction. This was also the cause of the derailment at Llangennech in August 2020 as Rail Engineer reported in issue 194 (Jan-Feb 2022). In this case, the wheel flats were the result of defective brakes and the RAIB report identified significant failings in wagon maintenance. Other previous freight wagon derailments had also been caused by poor wagon maintenance. Hence RAIB’s chief inspector at the time, Simon French, stressed that the safe maintenance of freight wagons has to improve. Against the background, some assumed that the Petteril Bridge derailment had also been caused by poor wagon maintenance. Yet RAIB’s Petteril Bridge report into this accident shows that it was not caused by poor maintenance. Indeed, no-one was in any way at fault, nor was there any equipment failure. It revealed that it was caused by the train experiencing poor adhesion over an hour before it derailed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

©Credit

6C00 AND ITS JOURNEY Freight train 6C00 consisted of a Class 66 locomotive hauling 14 JPA tank wagons each weighing about 101 tonnes, including the 80 tonnes of cement each wagon carried. These wagons had been maintained within the required periodicity and had no significant defects. 6C00 was the 17:15 from Clitheroe Castle Cement sidings to a freight yard north of Carlisle station. It had a single-pipe air brake system in which the pipe both supplies air to the wagon’s brake reservoirs and controls the braking.

FEATURE

PHOTO: RAIB

The wagon brakes are applied when the brake distributor senses a reduction in air pipe pressure and then admits air from a reservoir into the brake cylinders at a pressure proportional to that of the reduction in air pipe pressure. This then forces brake blocks against the wheel treads through a system of rods and beams. The wagons have no wheel slide protection (WSP) system. Though such systems are common on passenger trains, almost all freight wagons lack the electrical supply needed to operate a WSP system. 6C00 was prepared at the Clitheroe cement terminal and joined the primarily freight-only line between Blackburn and Hellifield at 17:25. Webcam footage showed that all train wheels were rotating at this point. Eight minutes later the driver carried out a running brake test as required by the Rule Book. This applied the brake for 17 seconds and reduced the train’s speed by 11mph. The train reached Hellifield at 18:00 after which it joined the Settle to Carlisle line which goes over the north Pennine Hills and is England’s highest

railway. From Settle, 6C00 had a steep ascent for 24km at an average gradient of 1 in 107, a flatter 10km stretch along the top of the hills, followed by a 24km descent at 1 in 120 to Petteril Bridge Junction. 6C00 was travelling at close to its maximum speed of 60mph before starting its climb. Despite the driver applying maximum power, the train speed up the long gradient was around 25mph and, at one point, dropped to 17mph. The On Train Data Recorder (OTDR) showed that the locomotive was operating at its adhesion limit and so experienced frequent wheel slip. The locomotive managed this by reducing power and depositing sand on the railhead. The line also has traction gel applicators to assist trains up its steep gradients. The train reached the line’s 356-metre summit at Ais Gill at 18:55, after which the driver made the first of many short brake applications on the long descent to Petteril Bridge Junction. By 19:53, 6C00 had slowed to 20mph as it approached the junction. As it passed over its trailing points, the leading wheelset of the ninth wagon derailed and destroyed these points so that subsequent wheelsets were derailed. The ninth and tenth wagons then demolished the bridge parapet wall and fell into the river below. This caused the coupling and brake pipe between the fifth and sixth wagons to separate, which automatically applied the train’s brakes. The driver then advised the signaller who blocked all lines to traffic.

Gradient profile of the train’s route

PHOTO: RAIB

OTDR data overlaid on gradient profile

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

It was found that the derailed wheelset had flats around 290mm long and 25mm deep which resulted in a large false flange on the outside edge of the wheel. The wheelset became derailed when its false flange split the closed switch rail from its stock rail and rolled it over. The damaged points then derailed all the following wheels. The Llangennoch derailment was caused by a wheel flat 230mm long and up to 15mm deep.

Adhesion level High Medium

Low

Typical coefficent of friction > 0.15

Clean rail wet or dry

0.10 to 0.15

Damp rails with some contamination

0.05 to 0.10

Typical autumn mornings due to dew / dampness often combined with light overnight rust

<0.05

Severe rail contamination often due to leaves but sometimes other pollution

WHY THE FLAT?

PHOTO: RAIB

From an analysis of brake applications from the OTDR and false flange marks on points along the route, RAIB concluded that the wheelset stopped rotating when the driver made a 30 second, 35% full service brake application approaching the 30mph permanent speed restriction (PSR) at Dent station which is close to the line’s summit and about 86km from Petteril Bridge Junction.

OTDR speed and braking data

The RAIB report considers that a wheelset can stop rotating due to one or more of the following: 1. A handbrake is left on before departure. 2. Brakes apply due to a faulty air brake system. 3. Brakes apply due to object becoming caught within the brake rigging. 4. An object jammed between brake rigging and wheels. 5. The wheelset’s axle bearings seize. 6. There has been a brake application in conditions of low wheel/rail adhesion.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

It was windy as 6C00 approached Dent, which is the highest station in England. A weather station there recorded average wind speeds of around 24 to 30 km/h, gusting to 40 km/h. With the line at this location being also particularly exposed, leaf fall in mid-October, was quite likely. This station also recorded an air temperature of 9°C, only about 1°C above the dew point. Hence it was likely that there was railhead condensation. Indeed, signallers further north noted that the rails were damp. Dent had no record of any abnormal adhesion problems and so was not considered to have a leaf fall adhesion risk. The line here generally runs through open moorland, though there is a small group of trees on a 50-metre section of the line where 6C00 would have braked for PSR at Dent. There conditions were commensurate with low adhesion. The RAIB investigation found that the brake application approaching Dent would have produced a retarding force of 3.6 kN per wheel. For a wheelset to slide under that level of braking, the adhesion would have to be less than 0.03. From a study commissioned for a previous investigation, RAIB estimated that a 30-second wheelslide would produce a wheelflat about 60mm long and 1mm deep. If the wheel is to rotate once the brakes have been released, the rotational force on the wheelset has to generate enough force to overcome the 25-tonne weight on the axle for sufficient time to lift it by 1mm. The study showed that this would need a coefficient of friction greater than 0.07. Once the wheels started to slide, their flats got longer, and it became progressively more difficult for the wheel to rotate. PHOTO: RAIB

Having systematically discounted items 1 to 5, the investigation focused on the sixth possibility. At the time of the accident, adhesion on the Settle and Carlisle line was poor as shown by the way that the locomotive had slipping wheels as it climbed to the summit. Drivers on trains climbing to the summit from Carlise that day also reported low adhesion conditions at multiple locations. From OTDR data, gradient and train weight, RAIB was able to determine that adhesion (coefficient of friction between wheel and rail) on the climb to the summit was as low as 0.07 in one location even though sand had been applied to the rails. This compares with typical adhesion levels on a clean rail (wet or dry) of at least 0.15.

Very Low

Description

FEATURE

PHOTO: RAIB

Satellite view of braking whilst approaching Dent

The report considered why only one wheelset on the train stopped rotating. It was considered possible that this wheelset was the first to experience insufficient adhesion for the brake force applied at that moment and that its slide increased adhesion for subsequent wheels.

DETECTING THE SLIDE With 6C00 running for an over an hour with a sliding wheelset, the investigation considered whether this should have been detected before the train derailed. With no engineered system in place to detect wheelsets that were not rotating, this would have required human intervention. When the train passed Dent, it was dark. It then passed seven manual signal boxes before it derailed. The signallers there were required to observe the train’s tail lamp to confirm that it is complete and be alert to any obvious problem with the train. None of the signallers heard or saw anything amiss with the train. Although video footage at three locations showed sparks from the stopped wheelset, in some cases this was not clear until the video was enhanced. As 6C00 reached Lazonby & Kirkoswald and left the last of the three axle counter sections controlled by Culgaith signal box, the signaller there noted that these three sections were still shown as occupied. He/ she then contacted the next signaller at Low House to check if the train was complete. To

do so the signaller stood on the signalbox balcony to observe the tail light but did not observe any sparking possibly because the area around the signalbox is well lit for its adjacent level crossing. Axle counter sensors detect the passage of wheels by the distortion of a magnetic field. They are designed to detect with a compliant profile which allows flanges to be 6.5mm deeper than nominal. On the sliding wheel, the flange was about 20mm deeper than nominal. This would have been detected as non-compliant and given the signaller a fault indicator showing the track section as occupied. The report considered whether signallers should arrange to have trains stopped and examined in the event of sequential axle counter section failures. It concludes that the Rule Book is not as clear in this respect as it refers to track circuit failures without clarifying that, as far as the Rule Book is concerned, axle counter sections are also track circuits. The Rule Book also requires drivers to “look out from time to time to make sure that the train is following in a safe and correct way”. However, not surprisingly, the driver did not consider it safe to lean out of his cab window at 60 mph on a cold, windy night. Even if he/she had, the sliding wheelset was 150 metres from the driver who was therefore less likely to see the sparking than the signallers who saw the train passing.

It was noted that the ORR is encouraging train operators to reduce the risk of passenger fatalities from leaning out of train windows. It was therefore questioned whether this Rule Book requirement puts drivers at risk, especially when it is dark, and they cannot be sure it is safe to put their heads out of the window.

PREVENTING REPETITION Whilst wheel slide when braking is common, it is quite rare for wheels to continue to slide after brakes have been released to the extent that a deep flat is created. Indeed many, including your writer, found it difficult to believe that this is possible on a defect-free wagon. Yet this is not the first time that this phenomenon has caused an accident. For example: » Two rails were fractured between Pencoed and Llanharan in March 2021 after a wagon wheelset with a 185mm flat restarted rotating. » A Rail Head Treatment Train (RHTT) at Dunkeld & Birnham was derailed then rerailed itself at the next set of points in October 2018. » In January 2006, three broken rails were caused by wagon wheelset that acquired a 120 mm flat on long descent from Meldon Quarry and then restarted rotating.

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.

1923 TO 2023: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT WORKERS DURING TIMES OF NEED.

£1.25 a week covers you, your live-in partner and dependent children. Join online today www.tbf.org.uk

Registered charity; England and Wales,1160901, and Scotland SC047016

TBF_CentAdvert_185x50.indd 1

09/12/2022 16:10

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

The prevention of such accidents requires better adhesion management and /or detection of locked wheels by rail staff, trackside devices, or on-wagon sensors. These mitigations are considered below. RAIB considers that the seasonal adhesion management regime may not fully recognise the risks to freight trains as this is driven by issues faced by passenger trains. Yet it found no evidence that the likely slide initiation location at Dent was at abnormally high risk of leaf fall. When considering the level of risk, the small clump of trees in open moorland at Dent would seem to present a trivial risk compared with, say, the large number of trees in the cutting approaching Salisbury tunnel. Between Dent and Petteril Bridge Junction, 6C00 passed seven signalboxes at which the signallers were required to observe the train’s tail lamp and be alert to any obvious problem with the train. Whilst a signaller may notice a locked wheel, the report shows why it is not realistic to rely on signallers to detect non-rotating wheels, especially as much of the railway is controlled by power signal boxes. It also shows why it is even less realistic to rely on the driver to do so. Trackside systems include wheel impact load detection (WILD) sites that identify vehicles with excessive dynamic loads. Although this includes those with flats on their wheels, such systems cannot detect non-rotating wheels. There are also hot axlebox detectors (HABDs) that measure radiated heat to detect failing axle bearings. In some cases, HABDs can detect the excessive temperature of non-rotating wheels though these are not generally configured to trigger alarms. The investigation shows that sequential axle counter section failures have the potential to alert signallers of sliding wheelsets. However, this is not their design intent, and these would only detect large wheel flats on wagons already significantly at risk of derailment. If trackside systems were to be relied upon to detect all instances of sliding wagon wheels before they caused a derailment, these would have to be placed a short distance apart throughout the rail freight network at a significant cost. In this respect it is noteworthy that the investigation could only assess the state of the wheelsets concerned six days before the derailment as this was when the wagons in 6C00 last passed over a WILD site. VTG’s iWagon]

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

ON-WAGON SENSORS Although modern passenger trains are fitted with numerous sensors, freight wagons generally have none as they have no electrical supply. Yet recent developments show how wagon-powered sensors can prevent derailments and offer significant other business benefits. One such initiative is the iWagon which is the result of a 10- year collaboration between KnorrBremse and wagon leasing company, VTG Rail UK which also owns the cement wagons derailed at Petteril Bridge Junction. Their iWagon has axle-powered generators to provide an electricity supply for wheel slide protection and various sensors which include GPS location, wheel loading, axle-lock detection, handbrake status, brake condition monitoring and the identification of harmonic frequencies to identify deteriorating components. The iWagon can provide alerts and relevant information to the driver, Network Rail, and other stakeholders. As well as preventing derailments, these digital wagons could assist Network Rail in identifying low adhesion hot spots. Sensor data and wagon mileage can also be used to optimise maintenance to increase wagon availability. In this way, digital wagon conversions have the potential to pay for themselves. VTG commenced a four-month trial of nine iWagons on 2 October, on Tarmac’s daily return service from its cement plant at Dunbar to its depot at Seaham in County Durham. Data from this trial will be evaluated in January ahead of the first 50 production wagons planned for 2024. This trial was intentionally planned to take place during the leaf-fall season.

RECOMMENDATIONS The report’s key recommendation was, in summary, that Network Rail and the freight operating companies should work in collaboration with RSSB to review the risks faced by freight wagons during normal brake applications in foreseeably low adhesion conditions including sliding wheelsets. This review’s findings are then to be used to evaluate the processes, standards, and guidance for rail adhesion management, and produce a timebound plan to implement the resultant changes. The report also made two other recommendations to ensure/clarify the rules relating to sequential axle counter failures and to determine the effectiveness of the Rule Book requirement for drivers to regularly look back along their train and assess the risks of this activity.

Ariel view of derailment site with its 800-tonnne crane for which the pad required 16 x 13-metre deep foundation piles PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Incidents of sliding freight wagons wheelsets caused by low adhesion are difficult to detect. Though these are fortunately quite rare, the Petteril Bridge Junction derailment shows these are potentially high-consequence events. Hence it will be interesting to see how the industry considers that this risk is best addressed from the risk assessment that RAIB has recommended. In the long term, digital wagons will be able to trigger an alarm if a wagon had a locked or sliding wheelset. However, this is not yet a mature technology and fitting these to the UK’s 14,000 freight wagons is an expensive exercise. Yet digital technologies have been shown to have a fast rate of development and it would seem that digital wagons have real business benefits. Hence, it may not be that long before undetected nonrotating freight wagon wheels are a thing of the past. Rail Engineer will continue to report on the development of digital wagons.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

FEATURE

Recovered wagon, photo also shows 100-tonne crane used to assemble the 800-tonnne crane

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

Levenmouth almost reconnected The end of the line at Leven where the final golden clip was installed

DAVID SHIRRES

n 25 August, Scotland’s Transport Minister, Fiona Hyslop and Alex Hynes, managing director of Scotland’s Railway installed the final golden pandrol clip to mark the completion of track laying on the Levenmouth Rail Link project. This work entailed laying 19km of track over a number of phases since March 2022.

Rail Engineer explained how this track laying was done in issue 200 (Jan-Feb 2023) and the nature of this project and its preparatory work in issue 197 (Jul-Aug 2022). To recap, this project is reopening a mothballed line which was closed to passenger services in 1969. Leven last saw freight services in 2001. The Levenmouth area is the largest settlement in Scotland without a rail link and is generally a deprived area due to the closure of its coal mines and other industries. With the completion of track work, Rail Engineer was on site in October to see what remained to be done to complete the job.

After this study reported in favour of a re-opened railway, in August 2019 the Scottish Government announced the go-ahead for detailed design work to support its re-opening. Devegetation work started late in 2020 and was followed by site investigations early in 2021. In January 2022, the Scottish Government confirmed that £117 million was to be invested in the Levenmouth railway and that it will open in spring 2024. The first mile of track from Thornton North Junction was laid and the first construction compounds were establishment in March 2022. Track near Cameron Bridge

REGENERATING LEVENMOUTH Since 2014, the Levenmouth Rail Campaign (LMRC) has proposed regenerating the Levenmouth area by re-opening this closed line. This resulted in a debate in the Scottish Parliament in September 2017 which showed strong cross-party support for its reopening. The case for the line was made in the LMRC’s booklet which the Transport Minister endorsed during this debate. He then announced that Transport Scotland would undertake a study on the best travel options for the area.

Booklet explaining both the benefits and issues associated with the line’s re-opening

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

September 2020

October 2023

FEATURE

For almost all its length, the 9.7km long Levenmouth branch has few straight sections. Hence its line speed is generally 45mph. From its junction with the main line, it closely follows the River Ore in a steep valley and then populated area by the River Leven. Although it had single track when it closed to passenger services, to ensure timetable resilience, the reopened railway is double track except for a 1.5km single line section from Thornton North Junction. The project’s aim is to make “Levenmouth a better place to live, work and play” and is being delivered on behalf of the Scottish Government with Network Rail in the lead with AmcoGiffen, AtkinsRéalis, BAM, Siemens, SPL, Story, QTS, and Rail Systems Alliance Scotland (RSAS) as suppliers. This report is based on my site visit which focused on progress at the line’s two stations. Figures in brackets are metres from Thornton North Junction.

LEVEN STATION Leven (9,654) is the end of the line and so was the site of the golden clip ceremony. When completed, its station will have a single sevenmetre-wide, 205-metre-long island platform, accessed by a ramp between the buffer stops. A pavilion between the buffer stops and car park will contain a waiting area, ticket machines,

and a welfare facility for Scotrail staff. Separate cycle storage will be located adjacent to the pavilion. An additional waiting shelter will be provided on the island platform. Its car park will have 133 spaces, including 12 for electric cars. To create a quality public realm, the area around the station is the subject of a placemaking study which is considering a central boulevard and waterfront path from station to town. The Principal Contractor for the station works is AmcoGiffen. At the time of my visit around 40 metres of the station platform had still to be constructed. This platform is crossed by the 75-year old River Leven Road (Bawbee) bridge which was in poor condition and required new abutments and redecking. This work is the responsibility of Fife Council who agreed that it should be managed by the project team as it is an integral part of the work to reopen the railway. Hence, work on part of the Leven platform was deferred until the bridge work was substantially complete. This bridge work also required the provision of a temporary road with a temporary bridge over the River Leven which was brought into use in May. This also has an interface with the station as the raised road to it will have to be levelled for the construction of the station car park. This work cannot start until the Bawbee bridge re-opens. The Bawbee bridge takes its name from the toll to cross the original chain-suspension footbridge built in 1821. This was a halfpenny or, in Scots, a Bawbee.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Leven station’s Pavillion

View of Leven station in October 2023 which also shows the rebuilt Bawbee bridge

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

CAMERON BRIDGE The other station on this line is at Cameron Bridge (6,480). Its car park will have 125 spaces and there is room for a further 300 spaces should these be required after the railway opens. This is quite likely as the station is situated off the busy A915 road which runs through Fife’s East Neuk to St Andrews and so it could be a significant rail head for the area.

There are 8,000 people living within 2km of the station. This includes the settlement of Methilhill which is to be connected to the station by a 140-metre long footbridge over the River Leven, consisting of 2 x 21-metre and one 70-metre spans. As described later this is being provided by a separate active travel project. The station consists of two 196-metre platforms with a footbridge and lifts. Like Leven it will have a Pavilion structure with a waiting area and ticket machines. There will also be storage for 16 cycles. Work on the station started in January. At the time of my visit the platforms were almost complete, and the footbridge and lift-towers recently installed. The bridge was fabricated by M&S engineering of Dumfries and installed in 11 separate lifts over two days in September.

SIGNALLING AND ELECTRIFICATION The line is double-track except for a single line section from Thornton North Junction (0) to Double Dykes Junction (1,451). The only other point-work is the crossovers before Leven’s terminal platforms. For trains leaving Leven there is a Down to Up line crossover (8,800) with a Down to Up line crossover (9,230) for trains approaching Leven. With most of the route being double-tracked, the signalling headways allow for at least a twice-hourly train service. Train detection at Leven station and on the branch’s single-line section at its fringe with the Fife Circle is D.C. track circuits. Elsewhere, 22 Frauscher axle counters have been installed. In total, the line requires 15 signals. These, and other trackside equipment, are controlled by factory-built location cases throughout the route. The line’s signalling system uses Siemens Mobility’s Trackguard Westrace Trackside System to interface with the trackside equipment, in conjunction with the company’s Trackguard Westlock Computer Based Interlocking.

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

View of Cameron Bridge station in October 2023

Cameron Bridge station footbridge

FEATURE

The line requires two GSM-R masts to be At the end of October, clamplock point installed. One will be machines have been installed at the Leven at Cardowie (2840) and crossover and bases await their signals another at Pfaudler’s Yard (9200) which is also the location of the signalling Principal Supply Point. Both this and the GSM-R mast had yet to be installed during my visit though I was advised that troughing was 95% complete. The Scottish Government’s plan to decarbonise its railway includes an interim plan for partial electrification of the Fife lines. This requires electrification of the Levenmouth branch. However, with orders yet to be placed for the required battery EMUs, it will be some time before Fife and its Leven branch see electric trains. To minimise the disruption and cost of the branch’s future electrification, foundations are being installed as an integral part of the construction work. As this is being done in accordance with the completed electrification detailed design for its electrification, there will be no infrastructure clashes or signal sighting issues when the line is electrified. Bridge parapets are also being raised to the height required by electrification standards. During my visit, around 60% of the required 365 foundations had been installed. The project completion programme requires rail corridor work to be completed by 4 December for progressive commissioning of the route with signalling commissioning planned to take place on 7 January. This will see the line controlled by Edinburgh Signalling Centre when it will become part of the main line network. It will also enable driver training to commence.

Then the only significant work remaining will be the two stations which are planned to be completed in Spring 2024.

CROSSING THE LINE Whilst the line was mothballed, it was crossed by various paths. For understandable reasons, Network Rail was unable to create level crossings on the line. Hence, various paths across the line had to be closed where the significant cost of a footbridge could not be justified. This was not such a problem at the populated eastern end of the line where the Leven Programme aims to make the area a hub for tourism, business, and industry. This is a partnership of various organisations including the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Natural Heritage, Sustrans, Fife Council, and Scottish Enterprise. This programme aims to maximise opportunities for active travel in Levenmouth along a 5km stretch of the river from Cameron Bridge to Leven. It is part-funded by the Scottish Government’s Places for Everyone programme. In addition, Fife Council received £19.4 million from the UK Government’s Levelling Up Fund for the Leven Connectivity Project and Glenrothes Riverside Park.

FINDING YOUR WAY AT NIGHT AND IN FOG

LED LIGHTING FOR pedeSTRAIL

Output at full power: up to 240 hours without additional sunlight

Maximum visibility: approx. 900 m (depending on the course of the road)

temperature range: -20 °C to 85 °C

one-side and two-side reflectors and different colours possible

sleeper spacing independent system STRAIL (UK) Ltd. | Tannery Lane // Send / Woking // GU23 7EF // Great Britain Head Office +44 (14 83) 22 20 90 // info@strail.com

www.strail.com

@strail_official

@kraiburg strail

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

FEATURE

Though the Leven programme is outside the scope of the rail link project, Network Rail is working closely with it to minimise its cost and has submitted planning applications for three footbridges which will become part of this active travel network. With low land by the River Leven and disused coal mines in the area, these planning applications required flood and mining risk assessments. These footbridges are: » Methilhill (6,400), a 138-metre footbridge over the River Leven between Methilhill and the Up platform at Cameron Bridge station. This has a 72-metre span over the river and 3 x 22-metre spans over the low ground. » Duniface (7,070), a 144-metre footbridge of 6 x 24-metre spans over the railway and the River Leven. This carries a Fife Core Path between Methilhill and Kennoway. » Mountfleurie (8,270), a 108-metre footbridge of 2x14-metre and 4x20-metres spans over the railway and Fife Heritage Railway. This carries a Fife Core Path between Kirkland and Mountfleurie. The paths over the line at Duniface and Mountfleurie will remain open until planning consents have been received and work to construct new bridges gets underway. The thinly-populated western part of the line has four crossing points. These are not core paths or have no legal rights of way and were permanently closed in August. One of these, at Double Dykes (1,196), attracted a petition calling for it to remain open which collected 1,400 signatures with the local MP raising this matter in the Westminster Parliament. This is an unfortunate example of how it can be difficult to build a railway without upsetting some of the local population. At Woodbank (4,900) a three-hectare field bounded the Rivers Leven and Ore was accessed by a path across the railway. To maintain the farmer’s access,

Rail Engineer | Issue 205 | Nov-Dec 2023

an underpass was constructed. This incorporated two-metre-square and three-metre-square precast box units for pedestrian and vehicular access. Earthworks were required to provide a 1:7 slope to this underpass.

THE TIMETABLE CHALLENGE To present a balanced view, the campaigner’s booklet explained the issues that had to be addressed to reinstate passenger services as well as making the case to re-open the line. This showed that, whilst the Levenmouth construction works were relatively straightforward, developing a timetable to provide the required connectivity would be a significant challenge. With track and station capacity on the existing routes to and through Fife constrained, the booklet considered that accommodating trains on an additional route would demand considerable ingenuity as well as resources of trains and crews. This point was highlighted in ScotRail’s recent consultation about its interim 2024 Fife timetable to provide Leven with a train service. This was needed as the required trains and traincrew for the desired service will not become available until 2025.

FEATURE

Off-peak services from Edinburgh to:

Miles

Approx Time

Current timetable

Perth via Kirkcaldy

57.00