Rail Engineer - Issue 211 | November - December 2024
David Shirres visits Dudley for an update on the Coventry VLR system.
Connecting the UK rail industry for over 26 years.
26|
12|
18|
Collision of passenger trains at Talerddig, Powys, Wales
One person died and four others were seriously injured when two trains collided on the Cambrian line.
Powering Electrificationsuccess: and building the future
The PWI’s annual electrification conference focused on cost reduction and highlighted good practice.
Implementing cost-effective electrification
Rail Engineer met Network Rail’s Richard Stainton to discuss how it is reducing the cost of electrification.
ADHERE & V/TSIC: Derailment protection, mitigation and consequence estimation
A recent V/TSIC seminar explored potential measures for the guidance of derailed trains.
22|
ADHERE & V/TSIC: Monitoring and treatment
At the same event, Emily Kent explained how One Big Circle’s AIVR is assisting with adhesion monitoring and treatment.
FFU: The sustainable choice at Dublin Heuston On 26-27 October, Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail) installed its latest P&C layout utilising FFU bearers.
30| 36| Track renewals handback at 140mph
Bob Clarke explains how 140mph track renewal handbacks were achieved on the East Coast Main Line in the mid-1980s.
Full steam ahead for Siemens Goole Rail Village
In early October, Rail Engineer had the chance to revisit Siemens’ innovative new site ahead of its official opening.
Very light Rail: An update
David Shirres visits the Very Light Rail innovation centre in Dudley for an update on the Coventry VLR system.
Standardisation of embedded rail for light-rail systems
Malcolm Dobell explains the subtleties of embedded rails and the benefits of standardising these grooved sections.
Injury prevention requires investment in technology
Zonegreen believes investment in technology can drive down the number of serious incidents taking place across the industry.
Sydney Metro: Transforming the city for generations to come
Australia’s biggest public transport project is building 113km of new rail to be operated by driverless trains.
56|
60|
68|
Carlisle crash of 1984 – What can we learn?
Paul Darlington explains how this accident occurred 40 years ago and why its lessons remain relevant.
InnoTrans 2024
Rail Engineer was recently in Berlin for InnoTrans 2024the world’s largest rail marketplace.
Innovation in London and the South RIA’s Unlocking Innovation event asked whether improved services might result from the introduction of new and imaginative thinking.
IMechE Railway Division chair’s address 2024 Diversity, inclusion, and the skills gap were key themes of Iain Rae’s address, as Malcolm Dobell reports.
RIA Conference: Supplying the railway with projects, equipment, and services
High rail project costs are a real concern that threaten future rail enhancements. Clive Kessell explains more.
Earn more,
spend less
Between 1994, when the railway was privatised, and the preCovid year of 2019, railway passenger numbers more than doubled. Yet over the same period the railway’s cost to the taxpayer increased by 270%. With high fixed infrastructure costs, increasing passenger numbers should have decreased its cost to the taxpayer.
Thus, as shown on the graph, while rail privatisation may have been successful in increasing passenger numbers, it has clearly failed to meet its prime objective of reducing rail’s cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, the graph shows that after British Rail (BR) introduced sector business management in the early 1980s, rail’s cost to the taxpayer was reduced by 46% between 1985 and 1993.
One of the reasons for this is that, at that time BR introduced the business profit centres. The impact of this is illustrated by our feature on how 125mph track renewal handbacks were achieved on the East Coast Main Line in the mid-1980s. While this was an impressive achievement by the engineers concerned, it was only possible because the BR Inter-City director authorised expenditure on nine dynamic track stabilisers as he considered that the resultant reduced journey times would generate additional revenue.
Although spending money to make money in this way is a basic business practice, Government does not apply this philosophy to the rail network. Currently, the Treasurer receives passenger revenue while the Department for Transport is responsible for cost control. Network Rail CEO Andrew Haines has described this arrangement as “evil”. It is to be hoped that Great British Railways will see the reintroduction of profit centres at an appropriate business level.
In recent times, there has been significant increases in the cost of infrastructure projects as highlighted by HS2 and costly electrification projects. For example, the original 12km Docklands Light Railway opened in 1987 at a cost of £217 million in today’s prices.
As shown in the table, the Scottish Airdrie to Bathgate and Border projects each delivered a substantial amount of infrastructure for respectively £520 and £612 million at today’s prices. Our website
has a feature about these projects which considers, with some justification, that these Scottish projects are amongst the most cost effective rail projects delivered since privatisation (Scan QR code)
Our feature on the Railway Industry Association (RIA)’s annual conference shows how high rail project costs are a real concern that threaten future rail enhancements. It is important to understand why costs are so high and how projects can be delivered at an affordable price. Hence, we would strongly suggest that previous cost-effective projects, such as these two Scottish projects, are benchmarked to learn the lessons from them.
Our feature ‘implementing cost effective electrification’ describes the work done to reduce the number of structures that need to be rebuilt for electrification projects, provide risk-based standard and simplify electrification approvals. These worthwhile initiatives will only bear fruit with the steady stream of electrification work that the network requires.
Peter Stanton’s feature on the PWI electrification conference includes an explanation of how the delivery of electrification in Germany is the subject of a performance and financing agreement. Among other topics, this event also considered a proposal to extend DC third rail electrification.
As part of our light rail focus, Paul Darlington describes Australia’s biggest public transport project, the Sydney Metro, which is building 113km of new metro rail that will be operated by driverless trains. Closer to home, Rail Engineer visited the Very Light Rail (VLR) innovation centre in Dudley for a progress update on the Coventry VLR system. This feature also reports on the Revolution VLR which has been tested at Ironbridge.
The eight tram systems in the UK and Ireland use seven different grooved rail sections in their embedded street tracks which total just over 100km. Malcolm Dobell explains the subtleties of embedded rails and the benefits of standardising these grooved sections.
Back to heavy rail, the railways of Southern England have 5,200km of track and carry 1.6 billion journeys each year. Clive Kessell reports how a RIA Unlocking Innovation event considered innovations that could help meet the challenges of operating such a heavily trafficked railway.
Forty years ago, a signaller at Carlisle Power Signal Box noticed that his panel showed a divided freightliner train. He
DAVID SHIRRES
RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR
switched the rear portion away from Carlisle station onto the Goods Avoiding Line where it crashed to produce significant wreckage, though no-one was hurt and there was no service disruption. We explain why this accident occurred and how its lessons are still relevant.
We also describe the recent fatal collision at Talerddig in Wales on which the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) reported low levels of wheel/rail adhesion. Yet understanding all the factors that led to this tragic event must await RAIB’s report.
Wheel/rail interface is a complex and persistent problem. As we have reported, the ADHEsion Research challenge (ADHERE) has led various low adhesion initiatives. This month we report on a trial that successfully demonstrated how machine vision can analyse high-resolution images from forward-facing cameras to identify areas of low adhesion. We also report how RSSB is developing a model to evaluate rolling stock and infrastructure design features to guide trains when they are derailed as part of the development of a derailment mitigation strategy.
Rail Engineer was recently in Berlin to attend the biennial InnoTrans event. This is the world’s largest rail marketplace at which over 2,900 exhibitors in 42 halls promote their products. Our overview of this event gives an indication of its scale and variety and shows why this is a must-see event for anyone wishing to see the scale of the worldwide rail industry.
An important new addition to the UK’s rail industry is the Siemens Mobility’s rail manufacturing plant in Goole. Matt Atkins was there when this plant opened on 3 October. As he reports, this plant will assemble 80% of London's new Piccadilly line trains and all future Siemens trains for the UK with the first Goole-assembled train expected to be completed in Spring 2025. The rail industry is essentially its people who need to be nurtured and developed. This was Iain Rae’s key message in his address as the new chair of the IMechE’s Railway Division (RD). In this, he emphasised the importance of diversity and inclusion and used his own experience to offer advice to young engineers about their development.
He also exhorted those with influence to develop future rail engineering leaders. This is certainly a message that Rail Engineer supports.
Editor
David Shirres
david.shirres@railengineer.co.uk
Production Editor
Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com
Production and design Adam O’Connor adam@rail-media.com
At around 19:26 on the evening of 21 October 2024, train 1J25, the 18:31 Transport for Wales (TfW) passenger service from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, collided with train 1S71, the 19:09 Machynlleth to Shrewsbury passenger service, also operated by TfW. The trains collided approximately 800 metres west of the passing loop located at Talerddig, Powys on Network Rail’s Cambrian line.
Very sadly, one passenger died and four other people were seriously injured. Eleven more people sustained injuries which required hospital treatment.
In addition to emergency services carrying out rescue operations, British Transport Police, the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) have commenced investigations. This note is based on bulletins issued by RAIB.
On the day after the collision, RAIB issued a statement reporting that its “… initial inspection of the track on approach to the point of collision found evidence that wheel/rail adhesion was relatively low, suggesting that the train may have entered into wheel slide when braking.”
On 5 November 2024, RAIB issued an update following its examination of the site and the trains involved. The trains were both two-car Class 158 diesel multiple units. These units are equipped with wheel slide protection systems and fixed rate automatic sanding systems, which discharges sand to the track when
wheel slide is detected during braking, a system which aims to increase the available friction at the wheel/rail interface in poor adhesion conditions.
The railway approaching Talerddig from each direction consists of a single track.
At Talerddig itself, there is a passing loop. Eastbound and westbound trains were timed to pass each other, stopping in the loop if necessary. Westbound trains climb an ascending gradient to enter the loop and, on exiting, rejoin the single track as it descends towards Llanbrynmair and Machynlleth.
The Cambrian line is equipped with the European Train Control System (ETCS), the signalling and train protection sub system of the European Rail Traffic Management System. This system has no lineside signals and transmits speed and movement authority into the train, displayed to the driver alongside the train’s speedometer. The limits of each section of track controlled by the system are signified by reflective lineside signs known as block markers. The train driver’s display would show if a train were required to stop at a block marker. The block marker itself acts as
PHOTO: RAIB
an absolute position location and back up in the event of a failure.
RAIB’s preliminary examination has found that westbound train 1J25 had been due to stop in the loop at Talerddig to allow eastbound train 1S71 to pass. Initial analysis of data from 1J25’s on-train data recorder (OTDR) showed that the driver applied service braking to slow the train as it neared the loop at Talerddig. Around 40 seconds after the first service brake application, the OTDR records an emergency brake demand being made. This emergency brake demand remained in place until the collision. OTDR data shows that wheel slide started during service braking and was constant during emergency braking.
Train 1J25 entered the loop at Talerddig and, although it slowed while passing through the loop, it did not stop before passing the block marker positioned near the exit. The train left the loop, rejoined the single line, and continued to travel for approximately 900 metres on the descending gradient, before colliding with train 1S71.
RAIB reported that there is conflicting evidence relating to the speed of the trains at the point of collision. Initial analysis
indicates that train 1J25 was travelling at between 24km/h (15mph) and 39km/h (24 mph), while train 1S71 was travelling at around 10km/h (6mph) in the opposite direction (a closing speed of up to 49km/h (31mph). RAIB is continuing to analyse evidence relating to the collision speed.
Building on the earlier statement, having carried out measurements of wheel/rail adhesion levels at various locations from the approach to Talerddig loop to the point of collision, RAIB reported that levels of wheel/rail adhesion were low.
In addition, RAIB’s inspection of the automatic sanding system fitted to train 1J25 after the accident showed that
the sanding hoses of the active sanders on the leading vehicle of this train were blocked and apparently unable to discharge sand.
It would be wrong to assume that the collision was caused simply by poor adhesion and blocked sander hoses. These may well be the immediate causes, but, as was seen from RAIB’s exhaustive investigation into the collision at Salisbury in 2021, there are likely to be many causal and contributory factors. The circumstances of both collisions appear to be superficially similar, but we will have to await RAIB’s report to understand all the factors that led to this tragic event.
Powering success:
electrification
and building the future
The Permanent Way Institution’s annual electrification conference was attended by around 150 delegates and was opened by its president, Mona Sihota. While there remains uncertainty about future electrification, both the Midland Mainline and the Transpennine Route upgrades are well underway, and existing electrification assets (which power around 80% of UK rail vehicle-km) need to be maintained, renewed, and enhanced to cope with climate change and traffic growth. The level of Network Rail funding agreed for 2024-2029 (Control Period 7) makes using technology to reduce equipment lifecycle costs ever more critical.
The conference welcomed expert speakers from a range of electrification disciplines and organisations. They focused on technologies that are already enabling cost reduction and would highlight good practice across the UK and continental Europe.
The conference was launched by Lord Patrick McLoughlin who was Secretary of State for Transport from September 2012 to July 2016. He considered this to be a “Wonderful job with difficult times!” He recalled the significant rail industry renaissance prior to the Covid pandemic and viewed the new political appointments for transport as being encouraging for the future, particularly the appointment of Lord Peter Hendy as Rail Minister.
Considering the question of “What is Rail for?”, he felt that rail had a vital part to play in promoting economic growth and regeneration. Cancelling a large portion of HS2 reduced the positive impact of the southern portion south of Handsacre, yet the current scheme had still added around £10 billion to the economy of the West Midlands. It was a matter of regret that too much emphasis had been placed on HS2’s speed rather than its real purpose of releasing significant extra capacity on existing routes.
He felt that the appointment of ‘Metro Mayors’ could have a significant impact on transport planning and investment with a focused understanding of local requirements and preferences, more effectively directing investment. The ability to complete the implementation of Great British Railways would bring a “guiding mind” for the industry and allied to that, the development of technology could drive lower costs. While responding to questions, Lord McLaughlin felt that there was a need to understand that a railway was a “whole system”, and the audience appreciated his view that a “rolling programme of electrification” was required. Overall, the conference was glad to hear from someone who will bring the experience of senior political office to play in his new role in Transport for the North.
Third rail extension
The first technical presentation considered extending DC third rail electrification. The presenter was Tom Wong, Network Rail’s assistant electrification and plant maintenance engineer for the Sussex Route.
PETER STANTON
Historically, the pre-nationalisation Southern Railway concentrated on third-rail DC electrification as, in early days, on-board rectification was not easily practicable, and it provided a simple traction current feed to DC traction motors. This was last extended into South Hampshire in the late 1980s. Other than some minor installations the expansion of the conductor rail system then stalled and tended to be discouraged by various agencies. These left pockets of diesel traction with the associated environmentally unfriendly emissions and a lack of flexibility in the use of electric rolling stock. Tom explained the advances which had been made in engineering the contact system and its associated operation and maintenance. Hybrid traction and energy storage were mentioned but the emphasis was also on safety for the passengers and the public. Proposals included switching the voltage on the conductor rail in platforms to be live only when a train was present. Protection for the workforce had been enhanced by the development of negative shortcircuiting devices to bond the conductor rails. Tom anticipated that acceptance might now be gained to fill in the gaps in electrification and eliminate diesel working. The Uckfield line and west of England routes were cited as worthy candidates to gain fixed electrification. Tom finished with the neat statement: “An electrified Railway is a better railway, no matter how that is achieved.”
Alternative traction
Alternative traction energy sources were considered by Zhongbel Tian, assistant professor in Transport Energy Systems at the University of Birmingham. He noted that the Network Rail traction decarbonisation network study predicts that to achieve the end of diesel-only traction by 2040 and net zero by 2050, some 13,000 single track kilometres (STK) would require electrification with over 1,300 STKs for hydrogen train deployment, over 800 STKs for battery train deployment while there are 300 STKs where a technology choice has not yet been made. He noted that for lines with low traffic density, it is difficult to make a financial case for electrification. For such lines, Battery EMU trains are suitable for decarbonising short-distance routes with low traffic density, while Hydrogen EMU trains are suitable for decarbonising long-distance routes with low traffic density.
German electrification
Rudiger Stolle, head of engineering at Powerlines Group, provided the conference with a European perspective. Within the UK, around 38% of the system is electrified whereas in
Germany the figure is around 60%. He stressed that efficient electrification projects need a constant level of funding to develop and retain wellexperience engineering and project management teams, as well as a fleet of specialist electrification plant and equipment.
In Germany, politicians now recognise that due to the lack of funding from the early 2000s, there is now a requirement to renovate 4,229km of track which will be done by a series of route closures with associated diversions. This work is the subject of a 2019-29 funding agreement which allows for more robust long-term planning. In addition, since 2009, a performance and financing agreement between Deutsche Bahn and the German government funds ‘replacement investment’ which accepts that maintenance costs fall as old electrification assets are replaced. Rüdiger explained how Powerlines was constantly investing to ensure the retention of technically competent design and construction teams. Closing his presentation, he made the point that individual companies can only do so much as government intervention is needed to ensure a steady flow of work for the supply chain.
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
After the first period presentations there was a change of pace. To avoid a day-long continuous flow of slide-related presentations, the conference then split into three breakout sessions which considered: DC conductor rail technology developments; electrical systems with static frequency converters for traction supplies; and catenary systems at bridges. These three sessions gave rise to active and high-quality debate and offered the opportunity for greater delegate engagement.
RSSB research
The afternoon sessions commenced with a presentation on the Rail Safety and Standards Board’s (RSSB) Research programme by Edordu Chibuzor, principal energy engineer, and Mark Hanham, senior research analyst, at RSSB. The title was ‘Feasibility of Smart Traction Energy management on the Western Route’. Mark spoke about the role of RSSB and its importance in acting as a collaborator in bringing various groups together to help solve problems.
This particular research project involved representatives from Network Rail, First Great Western, First Group, and Hitachi, with RSSB acting as the facilitator. It considered power demand management across Western Route in real time and, through various modelling exercises, aimed to understand how power can be efficiently delivered across the route. To date, the theoretical work has shown multiple benefits in managing power demand in this way at both train and system level operation.
OLE asset management
In her presentation, Ellen Wintle, Network Rail’s infrastructure director – West Coast South Route, explained her views on Overhead Line Renewals and Maintenance. She first reminded her audience of the definition of asset management which is “the balancing of costs, risk and performance to achieve an organisation’s objectives.”
Achieving this requires a strategy with guidance for the various asset types considering their renewals, refurbishments, and repairs as well as inspection and maintenance activities. These activities need to be planned in the light of safety requirements, the age of the asset, and the utilisation of the asset such as line speed and pantograph passes. The control period seeks to maximise the funding available over a greater asset base. A key theme is greater life extension works and campaign changes with less full wire run renewals.
Ellen’s team has also started to look at smarter ways of working, for example Risk Based Maintenance (RBM) is now applied to OLE assets, which allows for alternative inspection regimes to tradition practices. This is supported by using emerging technologies such as AIVR, Drones,
PANDAS, and OLE StAT to investigate issues. The intention is to enable maintenance teams to concentrate on removing high risk defects on the rail infrastructure as well as providing faster response times. This is particularly important for circuit breaker operations which are one of the biggest causes of rail disruption.
Noting that track access is at a premium, with a five- or six-hour possession typically allowing two to three hours machine working time once boards have been put out and switching and earthing completed. Ellen made a plea for designers to consider the workforce during early design stages to consider location of road rail access points and earthing points.
She spoke about the Control Period 7 settlement which for her route was broadly £800 million capex and £650 million opex and she stressed the need for every pound spent to achieve the best value. This requires route asset managers and engineers balancing requirements of the policy, local operational demands, and competing risks within the funding available.
Towards the end of her presentation, Ellen showed an absorbing video which stirred memories of some working practices from past decades which included the alarming process of walking along the top of a moving train attaching droppers. Ellen finished her presentation by posing the question of how we can come together within the industry, stating: “We all play a part in moving our industry forward – whatever our roles!”
To conclude
The last session of the day was a panel Q&A discussion. There was enthusiastic reaction to the news that Network Rail is developing plans for a proposed extension of the DC third rail network south of the Thames. Issues of electrical clearance and discontinuous electrification generated some lively questions with overwhelming support for cost effective solutions developed in the Valleys scheme and the Midland Main Line. With a spontaneous round of applause, the conference loudly endorsed a panel call to arms to reject risk averse attitudes and adopt best practice innovations and proven European solutions without elaborate, time consuming, and costly trials.
Paul Hooper, technical director at AtkinsRéalis, rounded off the day by highlighting the valuable insights from influential industry experts. He particularly welcomed the inclusion of DC third and fourth rail systems on the agenda, and the inclusion of a wider European perspective. He thanked all who had organised such a successful event and looked forward to the 2025 PWI Electrification conference planned for July in Cardiff.
PHOTO:
The fastest and easiest way for basic checks in your substations
With its unique rechargeable battery, the lightweight test-set COMPANO 100 is perfectly suited for testing at remote locations in railway installations. The device is ideal for
• instrument transformer and wiring checks
• protection testing at various frequencies or DC
• grounding measurements and continuity checks with up to 100 A
• and a lot more
developed for farm / accomodation crossings and for Road Rail Access Points
special, non-slip
surface
„one size fits all“ suitable for most common rail and sleeper types moulded in two halves for quick and easy installation which can be done manually
Implementing cost-effective electrification
In 2009, the Great Western Electrification Programme (GWEP) was estimated to cost £1 billion. By 2015 the cost had risen to £2.8 billion. As a result, the programme was cut-back in 2017 with no electrification to Oxford, Bristol, or Swansea. This also led to a negative government perception of rail electrification and that bi-mode traction was seen to be the way forward.
Network Rail CEO Andrew Haines’ response was that “we must not underestimate the harm done by the horrendous costs and schedule over-runs on the Great Western electrification. The ball is firmly back in our court to show that we can deliver costeffectively, and that we can be trusted.”
In 2019, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) published its Electrification Cost Challenge report which described how many aspects of the design and delivery of GWEP had added costs. As an example, instead of using long-establish empirical design guidance, GWEP’s designers had taken a risk averse approach and designed the piles from first principles which resulted in much longer piles than expected.
Once this issue was recognised, Network Rail commissioned a research project undertaken by the University of Southampton which demonstrated the suitability of the empirical method. This research was the basis for Network Rail standard NR/L2/CIV/074 ‘Design and Installation of Overhead Line Foundations’ which became a mandatory requirement in March 2018.
Reducing electrification costs
Work to reduce electrification costs has been done as part of an ‘enabling efficient electrification workstream programme’ which was jointly convened between DfT and Network Rail in 2021. To understand how this work has progressed, Rail Engineer was glad to have the opportunity to meet Richard Stainton, Network Rail’s engineering expert (electrification) who explained that the cost for an electrification project can be broken down into three parts:
1. Route clearance - reconstructing bridges etc., or track lowering, to make space for energised overhead line equipment (OLE) and train pantographs.
2. OLE installation - labour plant and materials. (Materials make up between 3-5% of an electrification projects cost).
3. Other - Track access compensation, distribution, grid connections, signalling immunisation, de-vegetation, lineside fencing etc.
DAVID SHIRRES
Richard considered that the biggest opportunity to reduce the cost of electrifying a route is reducing the volume of route clearance works. Therefore, a considerable amount of work has been done to provide evidence that the physical space required for electrical clearances can safely be reduced.
Although clearance was the main focus, the efficient electrification workstream programme has considered many other issues in an incremental approach that offered marginal gains over a wide range of issues was needed. To illustrate this, Richard produced a mind map that had eight categories with a total of 37 initiatives.
Although most of these related to electrical clearances others included:
» Bridge parapets – securing widespread adoption of deriving parapet heights from risk assessment rather than a blanket application of 1.8 metres usings the risk assessment methodology specified in the NR/L2/ELP/27717 ‘Bridge Parapet Electrical Risk Assessment’ issued in March 2023.
» OLE structure spacing – Following research on OLE wind loading by the University of Birmingham, NR standards have been changed to increase spacing between OLE structures from 65 metres to 95 metres to reduce the number of structures by an estimated 5%. This also offers designers greater flexibility to fit OLE structures around existing railway features.
» Rationalising traction distribution principles to reduce the number and complexity of electrical substations with designs that use the best modern practice in electrical power switchgear and control architecture. For example, modern protection systems enable track sectioning cabins to be replaced by disconnectors which give savings of around £2 million per 20km.
» Pantographs with inerters (a damper that resists force in proportion to acceleration) to improve the pantograph’s dynamic performance. This offers benefits that include reduced arcing and steeper wire gradients.
» Insulated pantograph horns – at stations the pantograph horn is the item of energised equipment that is closest to passengers. Also, at arched bridges it is the closest energised equipment to the bridge. Insulated pantograph horns, if fitted to all trains, offer benefits that include avoiding the need to cut back station canopies and reducing the number of bridge interventions.
» Reduced earthing and bonding – standard NR/ L2/ELP/21085 previously required all conducting items that are located within 5.2 metres either side of track centre line to be bonded to traction return. This has been amended to everything within 30 degrees below the contact wire. As a result, the previous 5.2 metres distance has now been reduced to typically 3 metres to 4 metres from the track centre line.
» Protective signalling gantry mesh – the requirement in Euronorms to use a small mesh size can result in significant wind resistance. Hence electrification may require rebuilding of the signalling structure. The standard will allow for a larger mesh size which still provides full protection without the significant increase in wind loading.
» Ice – clearances used to allow for wire sag due to ice on the conductor were determined on the basis of the Electricity Commissioners’ Overhead Line Regulations from 1896. Using modelling techniques developed by the American Military, Network Rail has shown that the effects of ice on UK master series OLE falling below the minimum clearances is negligible. As a result, the environmental conditions that OLE designers are required to consider no longer includes sag due to ice. However, ice is still considered in respect of structural loading.
Insulated pantograph horn
PHOTO:
Under bridge clearances
Of all the cost saving measures considered, perhaps the one that has provided the most benefit is Voltage Controlled Clearances (VCC). VCC uses surge arresters and an insulating coating to reduce clearances under bridges to less than 63mm. With an allowance for a 43mm uplift, it was necessary to prove that it was safe to have a 25,000V bridge arm a mere 40mm below the bridge structure.
This clearance is normally governed by the need for the OLE to safely withstand voltage surges from arcing, switching harmonics, and lightning strikes which can exceed 100kV. Metal oxide surge arresters placed either side of a bridge ensure that the OLE under the bridge will not be subject to such surges and so needs only be designed for the maximum system voltage of 29kV. Under normal operation, surge arresters are open-circuit but have a low impedance during surges which then diverts the voltage surge through the surge arrester to earth.
The use of surge arrestors was first trialled on a high voltage test rig at the University of Southampton as described in Rail Engineer 190 (May-June 2021). They were subsequently fitted at Cardiff Intersection bridge to permit the route under the bridge to be energised in December 2019. This is a rail-over-rail bridge which would have otherwise required significant rebuilding costs. However, at such low clearance bridges it is essential that the track remains fixed in position. This is considered to be adequately managed by existing track management standards.
At this Cardiff bridge, the use of VCC saved an estimated £20 million pounds. Initial studies for future electrification schemes using the clearance methodology developed for Cardiff Intersection bridge indicates a reduction of more than 40% in the number of bridges requiring re-construction. This indicates that this VCC methodology has the potential to save hundreds of millions of pounds if there was to be a significant electrification programme.
To optimise this concept and further demonstrate its robustness, tests were undertaken in a high-voltage test laboratory in Budapest which was the only test house willing to build a ‘bridge’ in a high voltage test laboratory. This allowed the observation of 12,000 A fault currents for 300 milliseconds which is a far greater energy level than can be expected for typical short circuits.
PHOTOS: NETWORK RAIL
Cardiff Intersection Bridge
Applying insulating coating
High
Surge Arrestor
Feeders (ATF) and twelve specific areas that might be impacted by the OCLS.
includes a common safety method risk assessment and certificates of verification by an independent notified body.
It would be reasonable to consider that new electrification work designed and installed in accordance with Network Rail standards is compatible with the rail system. Yet, the approval process requires that this be demonstrated from first principles.
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
As an aid to project teams, the second module of NR/L2/ELP/27716 has a generic safety case for OCLS clearances. This includes a system definition, lists of hazards, and methods that might be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of control measures such as surge arresters. It also provides bow tie diagrams (these show an accidental event in terms of its initial causes, negative consequences, and the barriers intended to prevent or control its associated hazards), a spreadsheet recording 55 hazards, and shows the OCLS and AFT design hierarchy.
Thus, this module of NR/L2/ELP/27716 provides a generic safety case that can then be cut and pasted into the safety assessment report to which a relatively small number of project specific issues are added. Hence the safety approval process for electrification projects, in effect, requires each project to demonstrate that Network Rail’s electrification standards are fit for purpose. It is not clear what purpose this serves.
Retaining expertise
The work of the efficient electrification workstream has done much to address Andrew Haines’s warning that after GWEP, the industry has to be trusted to deliver electrification efficiently. Since then, much work has been done to provide the evidence that standards are fit for purpose and incorporate the findings of research done to reduce the cost of electrification.
As a result, GWEP’s design and construction issues have now been addressed. Yet there may well be scope to reduce off-site costs by, for example, reducing overheads and an improved contracting strategy. It is also clear that safety approval costs could be reduced.
The 276 pages of NR/L2/ELP/27716 are a reflection of the complexity of electrification engineering and highlight the need for electrification work, such as much needed freight infills, to retain expertise in electrification design and construction. Without such projects expertise will be lost, so when electrification work resumes, as surely it must, new mistakes will be made, old mistakes will be re-made, and costs will be high.
It should be self-evident that the most reliable way to minimise electrification costs is a stable, long-term electrification programme that builds-on and retains the skills and experience necessary to deliver it effectively.
The GWEP electrification programme illustrates this point. It started after there had been no new electrification for 20 years. When it became apparent that some of its OLE mast piles were designed to be three times longer than those used on previous schemes, it should have been apparent that this was a hugely expensive mistake. Yet there was no-one in authority with electrification experience who could halt the use of such piles.
This is a lesson that should not be forgotten.
AADHERE & V/TSIC:
Derailment protection, mitigation and consequence estimation
t the RSSB sponsored Vehicle/Track System Interface Committee seminar, RSSB’s Dr David Griffin and University of Huddersfield’s Dr Philip Shackleton explored how the industry might explore additional measures for the guidance of derailed trains. This work was commissioned to follow up a recommendation from the RAIB investigation into the Carmont accident in August 2020 (recommendation 12 - see panel).
In the Carmont accident, a train derailed on debris washed from the side of a cutting. In 2016, a train derailed in a similar way just north of Watford tunnel. The outcomes were very different and could have been a lot worse. Carmont happened during the pandemic emergency when there were few people on the train. Although three people sadly died, given the nature of the subsequent damage, a more crowded train would have resulted in a lot more casualties. At Watford, the train derailed into the six foot and was partially constrained when one of the running rails became sandwiched between the traction motors and/or gearboxes on the leading motor carriage. Although another train was approaching, the driver managed to send a code red alarm over the radio causing the driver of the approaching train to apply the emergency brakes before hitting the derailed train with a ‘glancing blow’ at comparatively low speed. These two examples highlight those two derailments, with a very similar cause, had quite different outcomes. The research project, ‘Assessing the case for rolling stock and infrastructure design features that can provide guidance to trains when derailed’ (T1316) involves two strands.
RAIB Carmont Report recommendation 12:
“The intent of this recommendation is to take account of learning from the Carmont accident in the development of a coherent long-term strategy for derailment mitigation. It is anticipated that implementation of this recommendation will be informed by work, including RSSB project T1143, already undertaken by the rail industry as a result of recommendation 3 of RAIB’s investigation of the Watford derailment.
“RDG and Network Rail, in conjunction with RSSB, should consider and incorporate all relevant learning from the Carmont accident into the assessment of rolling stock and infrastructure design features that can provide guidance to trains when derailed. Particular features to be taken into account include:
» The risk of derailment from relatively small landslips and washouts.
» Position of track relative to adjacent ground on which derailed wheels may run (that is, features that can affect the deviation of a derailed train).
» Proximity to features with the potential to increase the consequence of an accident (bridge parapets, tunnel portals etc).
» Topography likely to increase the extent of vehicle scatter.
The above-mentioned assessment should then be used to develop a systemic, risk-based strategy for the provision of additional measures for the guidance of derailed trains that takes into account the appropriate balance between infrastructure-based mitigation and vehicle-based.”
Firstly, building on the comparison between Carmont and Watford, RSSB is developing a risk model to understand the benefits of derailment containment measures. It is assessing both location and route-specific derailment risks accounting for the features of the line of route, rolling stock, operational speeds, the operational environment, and passenger use. Using this work,
the risk benefit from rolling stock and infrastructure upgrades can be assessed. It can also be used to provide cost benefit results for new lines, upgraded lines (renewals) and measures to address specific highrisk locations. This is a significant undertaking. The overall risk model combines four models: causal, trajectory, escalation, and loss.
MALCOLM DOBELL
cause: Carmont (L), Watford (R)
The causal model calculates the probability of derailment in each 25-metre section, covering approximately 40 derailment causes. Probability is dependent on the assets present at the location (cuttings, level crossing, etc.) and train type (passenger, freight). It has been grouped in eight derailment types:
» Derailment on facing points (e.g., Potters Bar, Grayrigg).
» Derailment due to broken rail on a curve (e.g., Hatfield).
» Derailment at leading wheelset caused by striking a major obstruction (e.g., Ufton Nervet, Great Heck).
» Derailment of leading wheelset - not a major obstruction (e.g., Carmont, Watford).
» Non-leading wheelset - major rolling stock or track failure resulting in loss of support such as broken rail or failed bearing (e.g., Newton Abbott).
» Non-leading wheelset - Minor rolling stock failure or track failures where there is not a loss of support, such as gauge spread or track twist (e.g., recent incident at Grange-Over-Sands)
» Rail vehicle(s) roll-over due to overspeeding (e.g., Morpeth)
» Roll-over due to severe storm
The Trajectory Risk Model calculates the path of the derailed train for each derailment type – based on speed, curvature, and presence or otherwise of switches and crossings, but does not consider the effect that collision with structures, earthworks etc. has on the path of the derailed train.
Derailment mitigation will impact the trajectory.
The Escalation Model calculates the possible escalation of the derailment such as collision with structure, vehicles roll-over/fall, collision with another train, or fire/explosion. The event tree structure with probabilities is based on the Trajectory Risk Model.
And finally the Loss Model calculates the loss (safety/cost) for the base derailment plus any escalations from the Escalation Model.
So far, the principles of the model have been created with a small number of sample sections. Results for Carmont were illustrated for derailment risk, likely consequences and weighted fatalities index.
Carmont: Fatality weighted index
Carmont: Consequences modelling
Carmont: Risk modelling: Derailment
Next steps are to extend the model to the national network (approximately 600,000 25-metre sections) together with train types operating on each section, to incorporate Huddersfield’s work on the effectiveness of derailment mitigations (below) and the development of a simple user interface. Rail Engineer thinks this is a great deal of work to be delivered by the stated Autumn 2025.
The University of Huddersfield is simulating vehicle track interaction during the in-line phase of a derailment, post derailment containment including negative interactions e.g. with switches and crossing (which tend to make the outcome worse) and a parametric study on effectiveness of derailment containment for various operating conditions. The idea is that the model can be used to assess train or track features that might prevent trains deviating from plain line in the event of a derailment. But the first challenge is to build a modelling environment in which these features, or newly designed features can be evaluated.
Simpack-Rail was used to model up to the derailment point. This has the benefit that existing models could be used. Specific models were created in generic Simpack – the general-purpose multi-body dynamics package. Rails, guard rails, sleepers and ballast were modelled. The results of simulated trains running on sleepers/ballast were compared with published material on simulated and measured wheel response. The simulation had to consider wheel/ballast interaction including:
» Initial geometry - nominal profile, 3D geometry.
» Ballast surface deformation - non-linear forcedeflection curve for a nominal wheel and inertial reaction from displaced ballast mass.
» Energy dissipation (longitudinal & lateral)penetration depth and ballast characteristics and friction resistance from ballast displacement.
» Guidance effects - lateral reaction force (for the wheelset), inertial reaction force from ballast displacement, and friction sliding of wheel and ballast displacement.
It also allowed contact with submerged bodies/faces such as sleeper ends especially for duo block sleepers and there is provision for other surface types to be added later.
So far, the work has demonstrated that the simulation is feasible. The next steps move onto exploring post derailment mitigations, namely: (i) assessment of negative interaction of mitigations such as vehicle mounted and track mounted mitigations and vehicle mounted mitigations at switches and crossings; and (ii) application of the developed modelling capability into the derailment risk model.
The description above makes the modelling sound easy, but the speakers described their work as “pushing the bounds of modelling”.
Running along sleepers/ballast
Derailed bogie slips down ballast shoulder tilting the whole vehicle
TADHERE & V/TSIC: monitoring and treatment
he collision at Fisherton Tunnel, Salisbury in October 2021 was primarily caused by poor wheel/rail adhesion.
That said, RAIB’s investigation pointed to numerous other factors arising from management and communication within and between organisations in the industry, as well as autumn leaf fall management and treatment. One issue was knowledge of rail head contamination. Part of the management process is for a Mobile Operations Manager (MOM) to go to locations where poor adhesion has been reported to assess the presence of contamination. However, RAIB’s report stated that MOMs had been prohibited from going on to the track to investigate reports of poor adhesion, unless a line block had been put in place in the interests of their safety. As a result, they were expected to observe railhead contamination from lineside fencing of bridges (Report 12/2023: Collision between passenger trains at Salisbury Tunnel Junction, paragraphs 237-240).
Network Rail often issues problem statements seeking innovators to propose solutions. For this challenge Network Rail said: “Every Autumn, Routes dispatch their MOMs to inspect the condition of the railhead in high-risk areas. This inspection requires the MOM to go lineside to determine the level of contamination at each site.
“The inspection of these sites is undertaken up to three times per week and totalled circa 1,400 on Wessex alone in 2024 (additional inspections were required following ROLA (reports of low adhesion) or Wrong Side Track Circuit Failure (WSTCF) incidents).
“This process is placing our staff lineside during some of the most challenging and dangerous times of year and is something the industry must look to reduce. Slips, trips, and falls account for a significant number of lost time injuries, and sending staff out during wet and windy conditions will inevitably lead to incidents.
“The inspection process itself may also only account for a small proportion of the overall high-risk site due to limited access and other restrictions. This may lead to dangerous conditions going undetected if not adequately managed.”
This was reinforced by RAIB’s Salisbury recommendations.
MALCOLM DOBELL
Machine vision
At the ADHERE seminar in March 2024, One Big Circle’s Emily Kent explained how her company’s machine vision system, AIVR (Automated Intelligent Video Review), is assisting Network Rail’s Network Services team with adhesion monitoring and treatment and helping to get ‘boots off the ground’.
Brian Whitney’s presentation to the Vehicle/ Track System Interface Committee (V/T SIC) seminar also spoke highly of machine vision for identifying track features and defects.
Emily reported that following the October 2021 accident, Network Rail, SouthWestern Railway, and expert suppliers worked collaboratively to deploy a train-borne monitoring system that could be deployed for Autumn 2024 to monitor contamination on the railhead. The objective was to create an automated system on in-service vehicles that would provide images and location details to enable digital examination of contaminated areas. These data could be examined and responded to in near real time without the need for personnel to attend sites and make visual inspections from hazardous lineside positions.
Equipment was fitted to two SWR Class 158 trains and to one of Network Rail’s Multi Purpose Vehicles (MPV) assigned to railhead treatment duties. The installation included the AIVR Connect module (data acquisition and transmission), AIVR Tachometer, two cameras, and lighting. The cameras are capable of capturing high resolution images of the rails even at 90mph. A forward-facing-camera was also installed on some of the trains to provide context of the line. The data was automatically transmitted to One Big Circle’s AIVR ‘cloud’ and could be rapidly reviewed using the AIVR platform. External data sets, such as known high risk areas, were integrated with AIVR. The trial has successfully demonstrated and validated areas of low adhesion on the railhead and provided location data for these areas through the AIVR platform. All the data captured could be filtered by location so that several months’ data could be compared quickly to look for signs of degradation and/or confirm the success of railhead treatment. The ability to integrate with other datasets has been demonstrated; the location of known high risk areas were pre-loaded and footage was only captured of these areas rather than the whole route. In addition, data from the trains’ wheel slide protection systems was interfaced with AIVR data. This allowed alerts to be generated to show users where wheel slip or slide has occurred and allow the user to be able to see both the railhead and the general area of the alert.
Location on map and image from forward facing camera
Camera, lights, interconnections, recorders and communications equipment being installed: Top left and bottom right show the lights (L) and camera (R) black box with a slot in the lower face
Typical display for use by MOMs
Further progress
Since the initial trial, Wessex route has equipped two more MPVs (a total now of three) with the AIVR hardware installed and the passenger train installations have been maintained. It was noted that the Class 158/159 currently have no forward-facing video, but these images are captured by other fleets. To date over 80,000 miles of data has been captured on the Wessex route alone. In addition, Transport for Wales has equipped three Class 153 units, including Forward Facing Video (FFV), and these are in service.
East Midlands Railway has one Class 158 unit in action and two Class 170s due to deploy shortly (including FFV). The ‘cloud’ storage means that all required users – operators and Network Rail – can access the same information and this is enabled by Network Rail’s enterprise licence. Further change is being introduced under the headline ‘Smart Activation’. Firstly, one MPV with AIVR fitted front and rear is being used to monitor the effectiveness of rail head treatment, by assessing the rail head images from the front and rear cameras. This might improve the accuracy of low adhesion response and allow treatment to be varied or applied discontinuously depending on railhead condition.
Rail Engineer wonders whether the output of the University of Sheffield’s research into adhesion estimation using machine vision learning might have a role to play.
There is also potential to integrate the information from the FFV with the railhead view. For example, in high risk of low adhesion areas, other requirements could be configured including specific trees and plants. Over time this would increase knowledge of leaf fall of certain types of trees and increase knowledge of variables and impact.
An important factor in all this development has been lots of engagement and insight from expert end users who want to guide the development to meet their need rather than having something foisted on them. This helps deliver solutions that fit with operational processes, leading to improved safety and effectiveness. Examples shown during the seminar were identification of squats and rail welds.
Advancing remote monitoring
Whilst all this technology was being developed, onsite inspections by MOMs continued as outlined in the problem statement. This has provided a way of validating the information from AIVR and MOMs have also been involved learning how to use the data to make assessments without going trackside. This work involving Wales, Wessex, and Eastern is being followed closely by other regions advancing their
monitoring capability, with other routes and regions following progress closely. By providing these digital tools to those who need to monitor the critical lineside environment safely and remotely, ‘boots on ballast’ can be reduced.
Clearly, this system provides ‘eyes in the control room’ which will help staff managing autumn adhesion issues to provide much more timely advice to those who need to manage operations.
Improve the efficiency of your workshop with our range of prefabricated steel maintenance and inspection pits, built to UKCA and CE certified standards.
Premier Rail Pits offer the following benefits:
• Guaranteed water tight
• Up to 70% quicker installation time compared to precast concrete
• High quality finish
• All internal service ducts fitted prior to installation
• Any length available
• Rail attachments fitted prior to installation
• Full or part installations are offered
A full range of accessories and safety products is also available.
Tel: +44 (0)1775 821222
Email: info@premierpits.com
Web: www.premierpits.com/railpits
NIGEL KEIGHTLEY
FFU: the sustainable choice at DUBLIN HEUSTON
The Sekisui Chemical Company has manufactured synthetic wooden products made from Fibre-reinforced Foamed Urethane (FFU) since 1980. First introduced on Japanese Railways 44 years ago, early installations of the product are still performing to specification. FFU is now widely used on railway infrastructure in 33 countries to support track on bridges, decking for level crossings, plain line sleepers, and Points and Crossing (P&C) bearers.
In July 2017, Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail) engineers installed the first FFU baulks on the 135-metre-long Shannon River Bridge at Limerick. Since then, FFU has been used to provide track support for several other railway bridges and P&C projects across Ireland.
Dublin Heuston
Over the weekend of 26-27 October 2024, Irish Rail installed its latest P&C layout utilising FFU bearers. It was a busy weekend for delivery teams and contractors as they renewed the double slips and switch diamond panels, HN766, HN765A, HN765B, and HN764 at Heuston Station in Dublin. The programme of works was 18 months in the planning but delivered in a 57hour possession, without incident, and on time for the planned possession hand back time.
The new double slips and diamond switch panels were manufactured in Nottingham by Progress Rail. Sekisui was incredibly pleased that Irish Rail had specified FFU as the bearer system to support Progress Rail’s design. The FFU bearers were manufactured in Sekisui’s factory in Roermond, Netherlands, during early July, and shipped to Nottingham to be pre-built with the ironwork into panels, before shipping on to Dublin ready for installation.
Work started in the early hours of Saturday 26 October with the removal of the life-expired double slips and diamond switch panels, before a full formation dig by RRV. The bottom ballast was then graded with a dozer and compacted to predetermined levels by Bomag roller.
With the formation works completed, Irish Rail used its Kirow Crane to commence the installation of the new double slips and diamond switch panels. Following the completion of the installation works, ballast was backfilled ahead of OTM T751. Hot works were completed before the worksite was fully handed over to signalling and electrical engineering colleagues to complete the commissioning works. The T3 possession was successfully handed back to operations at 08:22 on Monday 28 October, slightly ahead of its 09:00 planned hand back deadline.
Sekisui was delighted to be chosen to supply its FFU bearers for this project by Irish Rail, thus building on the success of other recent P&C renewals in the Dublin area at Malahide and Dun Laoghaire.
Liam Hickey, infrastructure manager, Dublin, at Irish Rail said:
“We were keen to include Sekisui FFU as part of the Progress Rail layout at Dublin Heuston Station. FFU will contribute to a better and more reliable asset for this heavily used key artery in and out of Dublin City, giving a better experience to our customers.
“Track access at this location is difficult, we considered that FFU offered better resilience to the environment and with a significant life expectancy over 50 years, we believe it will contribute to reduced maintenance intervention and lower costs for decades to come.”
Points and crossing assets
The P&C assets in question – namely the Heuston double slips (HN766 and HN764) and the Heuston switch diamonds (HN765A and HN765B) – serve Platforms 4 and 5 of Dublin’s Heuston Station. Installed as part of the station’s extensive redevelopment between 2000 and 2002, these assets were integral to the upgrade that transformed Heuston Station from a five-platform terminal to a major transit hub with eight platforms and a significant increase in track capacity. This redevelopment was driven by the need to accommodate more passengers and services, as well as to future-proof the station’s design to allow for potential structural developments above the yard.
In planning the initial upgrade, designers faced the challenge of preserving track space across the front of Platforms 3, 4, and 5 while optimising accessibility to accommodate increased train movements. The decision to install double slips and switch diamonds was a strategic one, allowing maximum flexibility and minimal spatial use – an essential factor given the high volume of train movements. Over the past 22 years, these bi-directional assets have supported an average of 178 train movements daily, equivalent to approximately 33,000 tonnes, which has led to significant wear and tear.
Necessity of renewal
Following joint inspections by the chief civil engineer (CCE) Infrastructure Maintenance (IM) teams and the Signalling and Electric teams, it became evident that the assets had reached a critical threshold. Maintenance alone could no longer sustain operational safety, and a full renewal was essential to prevent potential catastrophic failure. This finding initiated the planning process, starting with a series of site meetings and coordination sessions to strategise the renewal.
The first site meeting in April 2023 included key stakeholders such as the regional manager, divisional engineer, senior track and structure engineer, divisional permanent way inspector (PWI), signalling supervisor, and senior assistant engineer from the Production team. During these meetings, the Project team reviewed existing layouts and identified areas for potential adjustments to improve post-installation maintenance efficiency.
The team’s engagement with Progress Rail, a key supplier for the project, facilitated the integration of insights from both the CCE/IM and signalling departments, which proved invaluable in refining the design approach. From here, planning progressed toward securing a possession map that would allow for daytime work while enabling the continuation of passenger operations on unaffected platforms. Collaboration with the Infrastructure Manager (IM) Safety team, the IM Operations team, and railway undertaking colleagues was crucial in finalising Possession Map HN/STN/1.
Systems testing
Once the possession map was established, a series of system tests were conducted with participation from the Signalling and Electric team, IM Operations team, and the Signalling Cabin at Heuston. These tests ensured that all interlocking systems would function safely during the work period and verified safe traffic operations around the affected track areas. Periodic meetings allowed the team to closely monitor progress, ensuring that each aspect of the system met safety and operational targets.
In parallel, the CCE/IM team began the procurement process for essential equipment, which also included tendering and securing the required Rail-Road Vehicles (RRV) along with coordinating with our Production colleagues to secure the Kirow Crane T900 and the OTM P&C Tamper T751, both critical for executing the track panel replacement and ballast work. After finalising logistics, the project’s delivery window was scheduled for the October Bank Holiday weekend, a period chosen to minimise passenger disruption.
Delivery and assembly
In Week 42 (the week of 14 October 2024), the first two track panels arrived at Heuston’s goods yard from the Progress Rail yard in Nottingham. Transported by ferry and offloaded by the Kirow Crane T900, these initial panels were positioned for installation. While logistical issues delayed the remaining three panels into Week 43, the team’s advance preparation allowed the Signalling and Electric teams to assemble back drives and stretcher bars on the delivered panels, setting the stage for installation.
Once all panels were delivered, the Division 2 CCE/IM team arranged them sequentially to streamline the installation process, ensuring that each panel would be available in the correct order for the scheduled work on the October Bank Holiday weekend.
Renewal works
Renewal work commenced with the granting of the extended T3 Possession (IE/HN/2) at 00:45 on the morning of Saturday 26 October, which was later adjusted to HN/STN/1 at 05:56. The Tamper and Kirow Crane were stationed on Platform 4 by 01:30, after which the disconnection of old panels and initial burning work began. Panel removal proceeded efficiently, with all old panels removed by 03:30 and relocated to a designated storage area.
Excavation began shortly after, achieving a full 300mm depth by 04:00, followed by backfilling and grading. By 07:30, backfilling was underway, and the formation was rolled in preparation for the new panels. The installation of the five new panels – comprising a crossing panel, HN766, HN765A, HN765B, HN764, and another crossing panel - proceeded with precision, facilitated by the Kirow Crane.
As each panel was positioned, insulated block joints and fishplated joints were secured, with specific joints earmarked for welding and clamping by 21:00. Ballast backfilling followed, and OTM T751 completed double or triple tamping where necessary, with hand-packing performed in areas inaccessible to the tamper.
Commissioning and handover
Upon completion of the track and ballast work, the site was cleared of all RRV plant and equipment, and the worksite was prepared for the Signalling and Electric team to conduct system testing and point commissioning. This phase included rigorous testing to ensure that the new P&C assets integrated seamlessly with Heuston’s existing interlocking systems, ensuring safety and operational readiness.
The project concluded with the successful handover of T3 Possession at 08:22 on Monday 28 October, just in time for the arrival of the Waterford-Dublin passenger service on Platform 4. This marked the official reopening of the platform, which now operated with the renewed P&C layout, encompassing HN766, HN765A, HN765B, and HN764, and positioned Heuston Station for continued reliable service.
Outcome and impact
The completion of this renewal closed out 45 senior track and structure engineer notifications, underscoring the project’s role in improving asset reliability and safety. The collaborative approach among Civil Engineering, Infrastructure Maintenance, Signalling, and Rail Operations teams proved essential to the project’s success, demonstrating a commitment to high standards and passenger safety. With these assets renewed, Heuston Station can continue to meet the demands of heavy train traffic with improved resilience and reduced maintenance requirements for years to come.
Sekisui would like to give thanks to Liam Hickey and Martin Hewitt for their contribution to this article.
Irish Rail would like to thank all its staff who worked hard to make the project a success, along with its contractors and suppliers; Breffni Group, McCormack Plant, Romberg Sersa, GPX Rail and Progress Rail.
This article is dedicated to Declan Conlon a valued Irish Rail chief civil engineer team member who sadly passed away on 16 October 2024.
BACKGROUND
Developed in conjunction with Japanese National Railways, FFU synthetic sleepers are made using a pultrusion process. Continuous glass fibres are soaked and mixed with polyurethane, and then hardened at a raised temperature, moulded, pulled and cut to length. This creates a high-quality material that has the life expectancy of plastic and the weight of natural wood, which can be worked like natural wood.
First installed in Japan in 1980, and adopted for standard sleepers and turnout sleepers, FFU has subsequently been installed on numerous projects in Europe over the past 20 years, particularly turnouts and bridges. Up to the end of 2023, there was more than 2,100km of track with FFU sleepers around the world.
Tests of the original 1980 sleepers undertaken by the Railway Technical Research Institute in 2011 predicted that the FFU sleepers could safely continue in use for another 20 years, giving a total life of at least 50 years.
Synthetic Sleeper
Simply working & sustainable
SUSTAINABILITY
State of the Art
SEKISUI CHEMICAL GROUP : Enhancing Lives, Preserving the Planet. At Sekisui, we’re dedicated to advancing the quality of life worldwide while championing the protection of our planet.
handback at 140mph Track renewals
In 1985, British Rail was moving to a market/business led structure in which sector managers had a budgetary control and were required to grow their business. For the Inter-City sector, journey time improvements were high on the agenda. Electrification of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) was underway with a service introduction planned for the early 1990s. However, at current linespeeds, the reduced journey time with Class 91 electric traction was only to be six minutes better than the diesel HST’s which had better acceleration at lower speeds.
Since the mid-1970s, Brian Davis, chief civil engineer of the Eastern Region (ER) considered every ECML track renewal job and whether the additional cost of line speed improvement could be justified. Hence, many routine track renewals were delivered at an increased line speed. Some locations needed nothing more than recanting and fine lining. More significant work included moving the River Great Ouse at Offord to ease five curves. Also, the major track layout simplification at York and Newcastle increased entry and exit speeds from 15mph to 40mph delivering a four-minute journey time improvement.
However, the total benefit was not enough for a limited stop sub-four-hour journey time between London and Edinburgh.
50mph handback
I was appointed as the ER’s planning and resources engineer in 1985. This introduced me to the possession and Temporary Speed Restriction (TSR) constraints on the operational railway. Management of ‘The Rules of the Route’ process, in conjunction with the ER Operations
team led by Colin McKeever and assistant Bill Robinson, optimised an intensely worked mixed traffic railway against the demands of cost effective, safe, reliable maintenance and renewals. The possession regime and planned TSRs for each route were typically considered 18 months ahead for timetabling to reconcile these competing demands.
In the summer of 1985, the Up Fast between Connington and Huntingdon was to have a complete track renewal to provide near perfect track quality. During the week-long block for this work, all southbound traffic used the Up Slow. All the latest technology was applied during this block including a well-controlled cut using laser technology to give a uniform ballast depth of 375mm, double-tamped to as-near-perfect geometry. Although this ‘should’ settle and compact uniformly under traffic, in reality, track doesn’t settle uniformly and a back-up tamping after one week was necessary. The conclusion was that, on uncompacted ballast, the upper limit of a safe hand-back speed to operational traffic is 50mph however thoroughly the track was tamped.
BOB CLARKE
This is because tamping, however well done, simply corrects the geometry with uniform quantities of ballast forced beneath the sleepers to fill, as far as possible, the void created. Any compaction is limited to 100mm below sleeper soffit and is longitudinal rather than providing vertical compaction. Hence, a higher hand-back speed following ballast cleaning requires ballast to be compacted using a rail-borne machine that simulates substantial traffic volumes.
Dynamic Track Stabiliser
In 1986, during a visit to Austrian Railways to assess High Output Track relaying plant, I, by chance, was introduced to the Dynamic Track Stabiliser (DTS). I realised that this would enable a much higher hand-back speed when following a tamper.
The DTS was developed in the early 1970s as a joint venture between SNCF and Plasser & Theurer. SNCF wanted to do more tamping during warmer weather, as rules limited work when rail temperatures were forecast to rise and increase the risk of track buckling because of a loss of lateral resistance between the sleeper soffit and ballast. (60% of the lateral resistance to buckling is at this interface). Tamping significantly reduces this lateral resistance which is only re-established after the track settles once a substantial amount of traffic has passed.
The DTS was developed to follow the tamper and exert a forward moving and oscillating vertical load equivalent to around 100,000 tonnes of rail traffic with each pass. This enabled SNCF to significantly increase its maintenance tamping mileage each year.
Around this time, British Rail was pioneering its tilting Advanced Passenger Train (APT). Tilt maintained passenger comfort as the APT went through curves at increased speed. However, this doubled the lateral track forces. Hence, use of a DTS following routine maintenance tamping was considered to be essential. As a result, British Rail purchased an early DTS-32N for use
coupled to and controlled from a conventional 07 tamper as a slave unit. However, after the APT programme was abandoned, the DTS 32N was never used by the London Midland Region.
After my trip to Austria, I became the permanent way engineering assistant to the Leeds area civil engineer, Morris Smith. I then contacted the London Midland Region area civil engineer to arrange a swap of one of my tampers for his DTS32N coupled to a 07 tamper. Although this DTS was in poor condition after many years of disuse, Alastair Sugden, who headed the Eastern Region ‘On-track plant maintenance unit’, managed to get it back to full working order.
70mph handback
This DTS and its ballast compacting qualities was first tested on the Up Slow just north of Thirsk on the ECML. With the support of the Inter City East Coast Sector manager, Simon Fraser, and Bill Robinson in Operations, I negotiated a five-day mid-week possession of the Up Slow to trial the DTS.
The Up Slow carried considerable freight traffic with 25-tonne axle loads and local passenger traffic at a line speed of 70mph. It required full depth ballast cleaning to 375mm below sleeper soffit which needed ballast to be compacted in three equal layers of 125mm. The site was cleaned by the routine method using an RM74 machine with the ballast return providing much of the bottom layer.
Fresh clean ballast was unloaded using ‘sea lion’ wagons and use of a ‘shark’ plough to ensure a 125mm layer of ballast. This was then tamped to provide an initial geometry acceptable for the engineering trains and on-track-plant, but importantly to provide as near as possible uniform quantities of ballast beneath the sleepers. The ballast was then compacted using the DTS.
A second pass of sea lions provided sufficient ballast for the second 125mm lift. Two passes of the tamper took the track to the second level on a further 125mm of ballast ensuring as far as possible uniform volumes of ballast beneath sleeper. Then a second pass of the DTS compacted the second layer.
(Below) DTS 32B as a slave unit coupled to an 07 tamper about to compact the Up slow after ballast cleaning.
Finally, a third pass of sea lions with shark plough and ballast regulation ensured a fully ballasted track section. This was then followed by a third pass of the DTS.
At this stage, the ballast had been substantially compacted but the geometry was not at the required standard for a 125mph line speed PSR. Therefore, the site was tamped once again to allow for final settlement applying a ‘design overlift’ to achieve excellent geometry on substantially compacted ballast following a final pass of the DTS.
The site was opened with a PSR of 70mph and was visited at regular intervals by the local permanent way supervisor. No residual settlement occurred for many months.
Ballast clean 125mph handback
This first trial proved this basic methodology and enabled hand-back speeds of at least 70mph to be routinely achieved with our plant.
At this point I enlisted the help of David Johnson and his team at Derby Research. Their help was invaluable in providing detailed geometry deterioration and track settlement rates.
The second site chosen was the 125mph Down Fast north of Thirsk. This required lifts of up to 100mm to improve the overall geometry ahead of the route’s electrification. A single pass of stone train, tamper, regulator, and DTS resulted in a finished quality that was handed back to traffic at 100mph. The speed was lifted to 125mph after one week with no further work required. By now it was clear that the basic methodology was sound
and that we should be aiming for a 125mph handback speed following ballast cleaning.
At this time, the Inter-City director, Dr John Prideaux, wished to achieve a limited stop, subfour-hour journey time between London and Edinburgh, so an order was placed with Plasser & Theurer for nine DTS-62N machines for both the East and West coast routes. This order was ‘fast tracked’ so that trials with DTS-62N machines on the ECML track could start during summer 1987.
At this time there was a timetabled 21-minute engineering allowance between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh. This gave an average of six items of work with planned 20mph TSRs. (6 x 3.5 minutes = 21 minutes). Hence, if all the plain line track renewals were handed back at line speed this allowance could be reduced to just six minutes for other work enabling the journey time to be reduced by 15 minutes.
Trials with these new DTS machines started in August 1987 at Balne, between York and Doncaster, which had a 125mph line speed. The work was ballast cleaning on the Up Line. To minimise possession time ballast was lifted and compact in two unequal layers instead of the normal three equal. It was felt that this would still achieve the highest quality of geometry upon substantially compacted ballast.
Having a bottom ballast layer of around 250mm followed by a layer of 125mm double tamped, regulated and compacted using the DTS-62N provided a good-quality result. The DTS traces confirmed both geometric quality and that the machine had provided the compaction required, simulating around 100,000 tonnes of traffic with each pass. Hence, Balne saw the first hand-back to traffic at 125 mph. This sustained a high standard of geometry for several weeks before follow-up tamping was required.
This was a resounding success.
Track renewal 125 mph handback
The next step was a complete track renewal on the ECML where the line speed PSR was 125mph. Planning this in a way that could be routinely repeated week after week was a demanding task and a huge credit to the Leeds Track Renewals team led by Richard Thornton.
Ballast compaction with unequal layers.
Track handed back at 125 mph at Balne.
Given the potential journey time savings from these trials, Inter-City East Coast sector director, Simon Fraser and operations manager Bill Robinson agreed a sequence of weekend 40-hour Fast Line possessions to undertake the work (14:00 Saturday - 06:00 Monday). The first of these was for the renewal of Up Fast at Sessay, south of Thirsk. This job would test the engineering methodology to complete successive 800-yard track renewals with ballast cleaning, which would be handed back on Monday mornings at 125mph.
After much deliberation, Richard Thornton and his team concluded that it was best to relay the sleepers loose, ahead of the rail renewal and ballast cleaning. The 125mph handback required all aspects of the job, including stressing, to be completed prior to handback by to the local PWME, Roger Freeman, who carried the safety of line responsibility.
This needed a production line approach. Ahead of the possession, the only work required was the laying of the 600-foot lengths of welded rail in the 10-foot and 6-foot space.
Existing track was removed in flame-cut 60-foot panels. New sleepers were laid loose by a twin-jib track layer. Ballast undulations from the removed track panels needed levelling before new rail could be clipped to the new sleepers. This was done by a BRUFF grader which was profiled to create an upstand beneath the rail seat of the newly laid sleepers.
The new welded rail was then fed into the sleeper housing using rail threaders and clipped down using Permaclippers before being thermit welded. An RM74 ballast cleaner then discharged spoil into open wagons on the adjacent line. Stone trains of sea lions and shark brakes followed, discharging measured quantities of fresh ballast.
Jaka Paka’s followed providing a track lift to some 150mm below final design level.
An 07 tamper’s first pass provided good initial geometry, though its main purpose was to compress uniform quantities of ballast beneath each sleeper, by double tamping. A regulator with brush followed to provide a more even distribution of ballast. The DTS then provided a maximum vertical rail loading of around 30 tonnes, operating frequency of 45Hz and at a steady 500 metres per hour. This compacted the ballast by simulating around 100,000 tonnes of traffic.
Two further runs of stone trains with shark brakes followed by the tamper, regulator, and DTS brought the track up to final design level. With the inevitable small undulations in the vertical geometry, a fourth tamper pass allowed for final settlement by applying a ‘design overlift’ to achieve the highest standard of geometry on substantially compacted ballast following a final pass of the DTS.
Rails were stressed and the site tidied for inspection by the PWME during the final hours of the possession to enable PWME, Roger Freeman,
Leeds production line relaying methodology.
Undulations after removal of old track being levelled by a BRUFF grader.
Long welded rail paced into sleeper housings using a Permaquip rail threader followed by a Permaclipper to clip the track.
RM74 Ballast cleaner nearing the end of the 800-yard renewal site. Newly laid track dropped to formation level for a controlled 200mm uniform lift using Jaka-Pakas.
to hand-back to operational traffic at 125mph.
The Leeds Area engineers team then went on to repeat many further ballast cleaning and complete renewal jobs handing back to operational traffic at ‘Line Speed’ while fine tuning this methodology.
In October 1987, I was promoted to the area civil engineers post at London Kings Cross / Peterborough with an objective of introducing 125mph handback at the southern end of the ECML. This had a higher density of traffic and was thus greater value to the Inter-City business.
Under the guiding mind of Area Permanent Way Engineer] Alex Turner, his ‘can-do’ team considered how to improve upon the standard set by the Leeds track renewal team. To do so they selected ballast cleaning and track renewals in extended weekend possessions between September and December 1988. During this work, the enthusiastic renewals team adopted a variety of methodologies to suit particular site and track conditions.
140mph handback
Many of the renewal sites were on the 20 miles of four track main line between Stoke summit and Werrington Junction. This downhill ‘race track’ had seen 4472 ‘Flying Scotsman’ become the first locomotive to reach 100mph in 1934 and A4 Pacific ‘Mallard’ achieve the 126mph steam traction world record in 1938.
This section of track was also to be used to test run the new Class 91 - 225 electrics at 140mph. This required signals on this section to have a fifth flashing green signalling aspect to provide the required additional braking distance. Hence, rack renewals during this period had to be safe for 140mph running.
One such track renewal was on the Up Fast at Swayfield due to the deteriorating condition of hardwood Jarrah sleepers. This work commenced with the ballast cleaner discharging spoil into open wagons on the adjacent Down Fast line.
A pair of Jaka Paka’s followed to provide a geometry good enough for the regulator to grade and brush the surplus ballast clear for the rail to be unclipped and cut into 300-foot lengths for ‘side loading’ onto the adjacent flat wagons for re-use.
Jarrah sleepers were then dug out of the ballast using Hymac excavators and loaded loose into open wagons.
The BRUFF grader followed, levelling the ballast, and creating a uniform upstand in the ballast onto which the new concrete sleepers would be placed.
A rail threader was then used to move the new 600-foot lengths of LWR into the rail seats of the new concrete sleepers and the rail subsequently clipped down. The rail was then welded.
A stone train, tamper, regulator and DTS followed to provide the next track lift, ensure there was uniform ballast quantities beneath the sleepers, make geometry corrections, grade the ballast profile, and compact the ballast. This
Tamper followed by ballast regulator. Doubled tamping with a plentiful supply of stone ensured void below sleepers were fully ballasted.
DTS following the ballast regulator. A further stone train then provided ballast for the second 100-150 mm lift.
125 mph handback required DTS to confirm track geometry and that the required compaction had been applied.
Completed ballast cleaning at Stoke summit handed back at 125 mph sees a southbound HST service.
was repeated until the track was fully ballasted, regulated, and geometry corrected to the highest standard on compacted ballast to enable the track to be handed back traffic at 140mph following the destressing and site clearance.
As an example, during the weekend of 5-7 November 1988, the 40-hour possession of the Down and Up Fast lines from 14:00 hrs Saturday until 06.00 on Monday completed 700 yards of track and handed it back to traffic safe for 140mph.
Profit centre lesson
Looking back to those very ‘heady days’ of the late 1980s, during just a very brief two/ three-year period, it is important to reflect on the achievement and that which had enabled it.
Without doubt, the Area Track Renewal teams at Leeds and Peterborough rose to the challenge to apply their considerable experience and ‘can-do’ approach. The Area Renewals teams at Doncaster and Newcastle also achieved similar results. Thus, all the ECML services benefited from improved journey times.
The Inter-City business was led by Director Dr John Prideaux who made it clear that reduced ECML journey times offered significant revenue benefit. His support was essential and included the ‘fast track’ purchase of DTS machines and granting of extended weekend possessions. This enabled the track renewals teams to develop business-led engineering solutions.
John Nelson, who was the Eastern Region’s general manager at this time, later reflected upon his experience to conclude that:
» Railways operate best when they are market driven and when bottom-line responsibility exists at profit centre or business level.
» Railway finances, operating performance, and productivity are optimised when marketing and production activities are aligned under single business leadership at the optimum level that is closest to the customer.
» Railway operators and engineers work well when they are accountable to, or within, businesses in which they can use their innovative and technical abilities to meet business needs.
Thus, while this story of achieving high-speed handbacks is almost 40 years old, the lessons from it have huge relevance today.
Bob Clarke started his railway career in 1967 as a technical permanent way maintenance assistant in Birmingham. After various posts in British Rail, including those mentioned in this article, he became infrastructure manager Inter-City East Coast and then held director positions at Railtrack and Jarvis. This was followed by consultancy work from 2001 to the present date. This is an edited version of Bob’s feature which appeared in the October 2024 PWI Journal and is published by kind permission of the Permanent Way Institution.
Production line methodology for Swayfield developed by the Peterborough team was quite different to that used by the Leeds team.
Hand drawn manning chart for the 5-7 November possession.
Finished track renewal at Swayfield 140 mph test site included three curves restricted to 135 mph.
FULL STEAM AHEAD FOR Siemens Goole
Rail Engineer has reported widely on Siemens Mobility’s Rail Village in Goole, East Yorkshire, home to its Train Manufacturing Factory, Component Facility, Logistics Centre warehousing facility, and RaisE business centre.
The state-of-the-art facility is playing a key role in producing the next generation of UK trains, building the highly anticipated new Piccadilly line trains for Transport for London (TfL). In addition, all of Siemens’ future UK train orders including Siemens Mobility’s new battery trains will be built at Goole, which is also gearing up to serving other global markets by 2030.
We last visited the site just over 12 months ago, as reported by Paul Darlington and Malcolm Dobell in Issue 204 (Sep-Oct 2023). Here, they gave us an overview of the site some months before operations began, as well as a glimpse of its Component Facility, where work had already started in earnest.
In October this year, we were given the chance to re-visit the rail village and speak to Siemens Mobility executives ahead of the site’s official opening and we could hardly turn down such an opportunity.
Opening
The Goole Facility was officially opened on Thursday 03 October, with a ceremony attended by then Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. The opening marked a milestone for Siemens which also used the opportunity to announce the investment of up to £40 million in a stateof-the-art Bogie Assembly and Service Centre, also to be located in Goole.
The new Bogie Assembly and Service Centre will incorporate and expand Siemens Mobility’s current capabilities to overhaul bogies from UK trains and will also include new production lines for assembling bogies for new trains, a first for Siemens in the UK. The new
investment is expected to secure around 100 existing jobs and create up to a further 200.
Sambit Banerjee, joint CEO at Siemens Mobility, expressed his excitement about the opening and potential of the new investment to nurture the next generation of trains in Britain.
"After more than a decade of tremendous dedication and hard work, we have officially opened our state-of-the-art Rail Village in Goole which is testament to our commitment to the North of England. None of this would have been possible without the brilliance, perseverance, and passion of our people and I’m incredibly proud of what we have achieved together.
“We’ll assemble 80% of London's new Piccadilly line trains and all future Siemens trains for the UK including our Verve battery train here in Goole and I’m pleased that we are supporting the local supply chain in the process. Our further investment in the Bogie Assembly and Service Centre will only add to our ability to transform rail and transport for everyone, right here in Goole.”
MATT
ATKINS
Rail Village
ALL PHOTOS: SIEMENS MOBILITY
Social responsibility
The importance of Siemens’ commitment to the local area was a key theme of a pre-opening event held on 02 October.
Greeting attendees, Finbarr Dowling, head of UK localisation at Siemens, explained how the facility came into being, why Goole was selected as its home, and the company’s affinity with the area.
Siemen’s journey at Goole went back to when the company had won the Thameslink contract and was bidding on the Elizabeth line. Unfortunately, it did not win that contract, one of the key challenges being that Siemens didn’t have a train manufacturing footprint in the UK. To get to a position where it could build like-for-like, it needed to build a factory.
“We looked at over 160 sites in the UK and chose Goole, not least because knew very well that there was a fantastically talented group of people living here and in the surrounding area.”
Finbarr explained how, although building trains is Siemens Mobility’s core business, it also wants to be a business for the community and be sustainable in a way that goes beyond environmental concerns. At Goole, Siemens is providing opportunities for local people, building skills, and encouraging inclusivity and diversity.
“If you look at Goole and you read the statistics, you’ll understand that it’s toward the bottom of the table when it comes to investment. We’re working hard to improve the environment and outlook for the community. That’s so important to us.”
“We have an amazing outreach programme which includes investing £150,000 to enhance the neighbouring Oakhill Nature Reserve, and promoting biodiversity around our own facilities. We’ve been working with around 20 schools over the past five years, and raising on average £25,000 annually through our annual cricket day to put into local community events.
Siemens Mobility is looking at the whole life-cycle of the area here. Previously its educational initiatives had focused on promoting opportunities in engineering to students aged 13-15. Finbarr explained that the company had not seen much
of a return on that. By that age, he said, it’s also too late. Today, its Primary Engineering Initiative is aimed at children from the ages of 7-10. The company is also working with Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library to deliver free books to the households of over 220 young children.
And this ethos goes beyond Goole and its immediate surrounding areas. Siemens has supported the wider regional supply chain wherever possible, contracting Leeds-based GMI Construction for the build of the Goole factory, Components Facility, and the warehouse. The GMI supply chain is based entirely in the UK with over 70% based in Yorkshire. Several components for the Piccadilly line trains are coming from local Yorkshire and UK suppliers, such as the exterior lighting from LPA Lighting, 25 miles away from the Goole factory.
The trains
As Finbarr mentioned, the key driver for the Goole project was Siemens Mobility’s contract to design and build 94 new generation Tube trains for the Piccadilly line.
By the time the contract was signed in 2018 the trains running on the line had become increasingly unreliable and expensive to maintain. When their replacements arrive in 2025, they will be approaching 50 years of age.
The design of the new trains aims to improve the experience of customers, with wider doors and longer, walk-through, air-conditioned carriages for more comfortable journeys. The new design optimises space to boast 10% more capacity, and they are lighter than existing designs, boosting energy efficiency and reducing damage to tracks. All this is achieved by an articulated design, meaning fewer bogies are required per full-length train, which Siemens says, provides the additional benefit of a smoother ride.
The new trains have also been designed with sustainability in mind. They are 95% recoverable and also offer regenerative braking capability, cutting-edge traction systems, LED lighting throughout, and reduce energy consumption by 20% compared with the existing fleet.
The longer, more spacious, trains will be fully walk-through, boosting accessibility. Indeed, the train was designed with regular feedback from TfL’s Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG) and the TfL Accessibility Forum.
Components facility
As part of the opening celebrations, guests were given a tour of the facility which started with a visit to its Component Repair Facility. Opened in April 2023 by Michael Gove MP, it became fully operational in March the same year.
Facilities had already been established in Leeds to overhaul gearboxes, traction motors, and bogies under the leadership of
Service Operations Manager
Craig Beech. When the quality of its work generated an increasing number of orders, the Leeds site outgrew its accommodation and was brought into the Rail Village, housed in a 4,500 metre-square plant.
Craig moved into the site with 35 staff, and has since expanded his team to 85, including eight apprentices (there are 30 apprentices across the site, in all). Much of the work taking place at the Component Repair facility had previously been carried out in Europe, and Craig is instrumental in developing skills at Goole that are not readily available in the UK.
Assembly and testing
Guests were also given the opportunity to visit the Assembly Building, where work on the carriages is completed. The painted bodyshells are delivered to Goole from Siemens’ Vienna factory with windows and floors in place, and cable and equipment trays fitted. As of
early October, Siemens Mobility had 12 2024 stock car bodies at the Goole site, 11 of which are shorter intermediate (IM) cars which have no bogies and will be suspended between driving motor (DM) and key motor (KM) vehicles; the first DM vehicles and more KM car bodies arrived during October.
Once at Goole, the bodyshells initially move through a number of work stations where they are fitted with insulation, undercarriage equipment, air conditioning, and their famous bright red doors. Their next stop is the Trucking Building where the vehicles are measured and load tested to ensure they are level before attachment to their bogies. These are delivered from Siemens’ facility in Graz complete with motors, gearboxes, axles and wheels.
Once completed, each carriage undergoes single-car testing before being formed up into complete nine-car trains.
General Manager Mark Speed informed the tour group that at peak production, Siemens Mobility aims to complete three nine-car trains per month.
The first Goole-assembled train is expected to be completed in Spring 2025 and will be sent for
dynamic testing at the WegbergWildenrath in Germany. Testing on further completed trains will also take place at Siemens’ Melton test track and funding has been approved for a 1km test track at Goole, due to be completed by autumn 2025. However, some dynamic testing will continue to take place offsite even when this is completed.
Going forward
The Piccadilly line contract is expected to provide work for the Goole factory until 2028. Following this, Siemens is the preferred supplier to replace another 130 trains on the Bakerloo, Central, and Waterloo & City lines - although the funding has not yet been secured. However, Sambit is confident that the current contract will showcase the possibilities of the Goole Facility and usher in the new contract.
"We have full trust in the government, as we did in the previous government as well and we think we will be able to work together to get the Bakerloo line for Goole," he said.
Beyond this, Siemens Mobility hopes to land an order for new battery bi-mode trains for TransPennine and Northern
among others, which it has calculated could save Britain’s railways £3.5 billion and 12 million tonnes of CO2 over 35 years.
The success of the Goole Rail Village is critical to the region. Siemens hasn’t just built a factory, it has created a much larger ecosystem, driven by the values of sustainability and employability over the long term. It is also a major boost for the UK rail industry, driving the localisation of train manufacturing and reducing reliance on international supply chains.
Rail Engineer celebrates the opening of this new plant and wishes Siemens Mobility every success in the future.
Very Light Rail:
an update
Back in September 2012 (Issue 95), Rail Engineer carried a feature on cross-industry innovation which considered the potential for the rail industry to adopt technologies developed for the automotive industry, such as lightweighting. This was a recurring theme at various events such as the 2017 Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Stephenson conference.
Our report on this event in Issue 153 (July 2017) featured a paper ‘Automotive to rail: can technologies cross the gap?’ This was based on work done at WMG (formerly Warwick Manufacturing Group) and described how the automotive sector had developed lightweighting techniques and made dramatic improvements in engine and powertrain efficiencies, including hybrid drives.
A few years later two Very Light Rail (VLR) vehicles were built using these technologies. These were the Revolution VLR (RVLR) and the Coventry VLR which will operate on a novel track.
Revolution VLR
Malcolm Dobell described the Revolution VLR (RVLR) in Issue 193 (Nov-Dec 2021). Design of this demonstrator vehicle started in 2018, construction in 2019, and the vehicle was completed in 2021. It was then demonstrated on a redundant railway that served the Ironbridge power station which closed on 2015.
To create a demonstration site, the track required minor repairs and a workshop, visitor centre, and platform were all constructed. All this was done in six months at a cost of less than £400,000.
DAVID SHIRRES
RVLR is intended to be a lightweight rail vehicle that offers a lower cost alternative to traditional heavy rail vehicles on branch lines to improve the business cases for line re-openings. Demonstrating the RVLR at Ironbridge showed how quickly a redundant railway could be brought back into use.
RVLR has been developed by a consortium led by Transport Design International Ltd (TDI) with Eversholt Rail, WMG at the University of Warwick, Cummins diesel engines, Transcal, RDM Group, and Prose (Switzerland), with support from Department for Transport (DfT) and RSSB. It aims to deliver a reliable, high quality passenger experience at the lowest possible cost using a lightweight vehicle to minimise track wear. It is a 56-seat, single 18.5-metre long railcar constructed on a steel underframe, with aluminium/Kevlar reinforced vehicle ends and roof with bodysides of double skin 18.5-metre-long elements.
Its bogies are based on a Wabtec LN25 low noise freight bogie modified to be a power bogie with rubber secondary and coil spring primary suspension. This bogie is proven for use on often indifferent quality rack which might be a feature of the target lines. RVLR’s design uses weight saving techniques, for example hollow axles. This gives it overall tare weight of 24.8 tonnes, which is 40% less that its conventional equivalent, a Class 153 unit. RVLR has permanent magnet three-phase motors powered by Lithium Titanate batteries with a total capacity of 62kWh. These are kept charged by twin Cummins 2.8l diesel engines. It is currently designed for a 65mph (104km/h) top speed.
Although RVLR meets the requirements for collisions at level crossings, the risks of train-to-train collisions will have to be managed by separation, for example operation into bay platforms at interchange stations. In practice this is not a constraint as, with their low capacity and low speed, RVLR is not suitable for main line operation. To date, RVLR has been demonstrated to 450 interested parties whose views have informed the next stage in its development. In December 2023, it was announced that Eversholt Rail has signed a contract with TDI for the production of three pre-series vehicles for passenger trials within the UK. Unlike the demonstrator, these new vehicles will be entirely powered by batteries that will be charged by a rapid recharging system. These new vehicles will start trials in 2026. Eversholt Rail and TDI are working with key stakeholders across the UK rail industry to agree routes for these passenger trials. These are likely to be relatively short routes, typically a shuttle service between two points with frequent stops. These would demonstrate how RVLR can quickly enter service without
the need for electrification or signalling systems as, at a maximum speed of 60mph on a segregated route, line of sight driving would be possible. Although, for an appropriate route, RVLR could make a big difference to local communities, there is a limited market in the UK for vehicles that cannot operate on main lines. However, RVLR is considered to have significant export potential as it has attracted significant interest from countries ranging from Mongolia to Morocco. There has also been significant interest from the United States, where there are hopes for a renaissance in passenger train travel.
Coventry VLR
A quite different VLR application is the result of a decision in 2017 by Coventry City Council to develop its own Very Light Rail (VLR) network. Since then, the council, with the support of Transport for West Midlands and funding from the DfT, has been working with the University of Warwick’s WMG to develop a VLR system at a target cost of half the cost per kilometre of a traditional tram system.
Revolution VLR interior
Revolution VLR driving cab
Coventry VLR graphic
PHOTO: COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
To achieve this target cost, a lightweight shuttle-type vehicle has been developed by WMG, which requires no overhead catenary or extensive utility diversions. WMG partnered with TDI to design the prototype vehicle which was built by NP Aerospace in Coventry. This is powered from a 750V 54kWh battery giving it a range of 70km. The battery will be charged overnight from a 20kW supply and during the day can receive a 3.5-minute charge from a 200kW rapid charging station.
The Coventry VLR (CVLR) weighs 11 tonnes and can carry 50 passengers or 70 in crush conditions. It is made from steel, aluminium, and composites, with a carbon/ polyethylene bumper and carbon/Kevlar cab ends.
Polycarbonate windows meet the requirements of the post-Croydon accident recommendations. It has a maximum speed of 70kph, can tackle a 5% gradient, and has an innovative bogie which enables the network to have 15-metre radius curves. The VLR system is made affordable by a new trackform that minimises the need for utility diversions, is not damaged by heavy road traffic, and can accommodate 15-metre radius curves. WMG partnered with the Paris-based engineering group INGEROP and its British consultancy, Rendel, to develop this track which is only 300mm thick and can be installed without clashing with utilities which are installed at a minimum
depth of 450mm. The trackform can accommodate 600 x 600mm access chambers which allow utilities to be accessed in an emergency.
VLR innovation centre
However good the design of the CVLR vehicle and its new trackform, extensive testing of both – as a system – will be required before this system is installed on Coventry’s streets. In addition to design optimisation, the required approvals have to be obtained. This testing is to be done at the VLR National Innovation Centre (VLRNIC) in Dudley. The £28 million cost of this facility was funded by Dudley Council, the Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership, Coventry Council, and the Government’s Getting Building Fund. The
Coventry
VLR trackform
Centre opened in 2022 and is operated by BCIMO (formerly the Black Country Innovative Manufacturing Organisation) which supports local businesses to develop new products and services.
As well as testing the VLR system, VLRNIC’s original purpose was to create a whole new industry by promoting the new VLR technology and supporting Local Authorities to develop their VLR networks.
The centre can also be used for conventional rail research and development and BCIMO is currently engaging with various heavy rail companies with a view to the centre being used to assist its innovation projects. The facility has a 2.2km standard gauge single line test track with an 867-metre tunnel built to 100mph standards and a 15-metre radius turnaround loop adjacent to the main facility. It has an ORR licence exemption to operate rail vehicles on this track.
Its main building has an engineering hall which can accommodate 45-metre-long vehicles with 1200 m2 of floor space and a 10-tonne overhead crane. It has two roads, one of which extends outside to a concrete pad for the delivery and removal of rail vehicles. Both roads have
15-metre-long pits and share the use of four 16-tonne lifting jacks. It also has electronic and software laboratories, a control centre, and a driver simulation suite together with 150-seat auditorium and exhibition centre with a balcony overlooking the test track to showcase vehicles under test.
In addition, VLRNIC has a 36 x 10 metres workshop which can accommodate 33-metre-long vehicles. This has an 8-metre pit, a 1.4-tonne overhead crane, and four 16-tonne jacks. Outside this shed is a world first, a VLR ultra-rapid battery charging station installed by Furrer+Frey.
VLR conference
As reported in Issue 197 (JulAug 2022), in 2022 BCIMO held a VLR conference in Dudley in the newly opened Black Country and Marches Institute of Technology which is adjacent to the then almost complete VLRNIC. The event described the latest VLR system developments including the RVLR, CVLR, and its novel trackform. At the time, the completed protype CVLR vehicle was just about to be handed over to Coventry City Council. A presentation at the conference explained
(Middle right) Driver simulator. (Bottom right) Fast charging system has an inverted pantograph as seen here.
(Above) VLR National Innovation Centre. (Top right) 15-metre radius loop. PHOTO:
PHOTO:
PHOTO:
how this had been built to meet the aspiration of a lightweight vehicle weighing a tonne per metre length.
In a presentation from Coventry Council, Nicola Small advised that there was a “phenomenal interest” in the project from other local authorities, many of which were represented at the conference. These included West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, West of England Combined Authority, Oxfordshire, Derby, and Stoke, many of which were represented at the conference. She felt that it was exciting to work with other councils on a game changing way to encourage people to use public transport.
A particularly interesting presentation was that given by Robin Butler, managing director of developers Urban&Civic which buys large areas of land to establish high-quality settlements. He noted that the growth in house prices within 2km of railway stations is twice the average. As a result, there is less financial risk from rail-connected developments. Robin was convinced that house building would be massively accelerated if government accelerated rail delivery. As developers would gladly pay more for affordable rail provision, he considered that there is a strong financial case for VLR in new developments.
VLRNIC’s current role
To understand how the CVLR project is progressing, Rail Engineer was glad of an opportunity to visit VLRNIC arranged by BCIMO’s Olivia Brown. At this visit Olivia explained that it would be some time before VLRNIC could fulfil its original purpose of supporting Local Authorities to develop their CVLR networks. The agreed CVLR funding is limited to
the development of the system, and it has become apparent that funding commercial CVLR routes is first dependent on a successful demonstration of CVLR technology in Coventry.
Hence whilst VLRNIC continues to support the development of CVLR, other uses have been found for its facilities. All its laboratories have now been let out. For example, TAE power solutions is using most of the laboratory space to develop its battery power management technology. Various events have used its 130-seat auditorium and flexible meeting spaces. These included a twoday ‘Electrifying Transport’ event to raise awareness of the benefits and challenges of electric vehicles and a ‘Made in Dudley, Sold to the World’ event for local businesses wishing to export.
The test track has been used for conventional rail research such as testing 5G communications in its curved tunnel. Senceive is also using VLRNIC to test and evaluate its wireless condition monitoring technologies. This test track is also being used for on-track safety training by National Infrastructure Solutions (NIS).
VLRNIC is also being used to support BMICO’s participation in the Clean Futures Accelerator which was launched
in July 2023 and is led by the Connected Places Catapult. This is a programme of funding and support for regional SMEs with a clean technology innovation for transport that must already be at a minimum of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5. Over a two-year period, this aims to have 40 regional SMEs join a six-month programme to accelerate the development of their innovations. Those with rail innovations are supported by BMICO whilst automotive technologies are supported by Coventry University. To support the testing of innovations developed by the Clean Futures Accelerator, BMICO has been given a redundant T-69 Class tram by UK Tram. This was introduced in 1999 and withdrawn in 2015. After corrosion treatment, wiring, and repairs at VLRNIC, it was given a vinyl wrap with BCIMO and Clean Futures branding.
The first cohorts of the accelerator programme held a demonstration day in May to showcase their innovations at the end of their six-month programme. These included concrete printing technology, fitment of a test locomotive with a hydrogen injection system and a carbon capture unit, and a fully electric express rail logistics business. Another innovation is a low-cost signalling system using RFID tags that is being developed by Universal Signalling.
The second cohort of 10 SMEs supported by BMICO started their programme in August.
(Left) VLRNIC reception. (Inset) Made in Dudley conference.
PHOTO: BCIMO
T-69 tram in VLRNIC workshop.
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
CVLR’s future
In 2022, the West Midlands City Region was awarded a £1 billion West Midlands City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement which included £71.5 million to develop CVLR and provide a 2km demonstration route between Coventry’s rail and bus stations. This funding was also to support other VLR projects such as the VLR innovation centre.
However, as VLR is a research and development project, the DfT controls the funding of the £35.4 million awarded for the development of an outline business case which includes the demonstrator track construction. Funding for this is released in the four stages shown below once the DfT approves evidence that the previous stage has been completed.
1. Technical product development and offline testing.
2. City demonstration pre-construction work.
3. City demonstration construction work.
4. Business case development and lessons learnt for Line 1.
While at VLRNIC I had the opportunity to see the CVLR vehicle in the vehicle shed. It was raised on jacks whilst its bogies had been sent away for an engineering validation. Angus Brummitt-Brown, CVLR’s senior project manager advised that this was part of the vehicle’s development which was almost complete for this phase of the programme.
Although there were reports earlier this year that the DfT had delayed project funding, Angus explained that these reports were incorrect as the DfT decision was a reflection of the stage gate requirement to complete the first stage gate of vehicle and track research and development before funding the next stage.
As part of this development work, 60 metres of CVLR track was installed on VLRNIC’s 15-metre radius curve in August 2023, this included a humped section with a 250-metre radius vertical curve. To date the CVLR vehicle has completed around 400km of performance testing and has gone around the 15-metre radius loop 2,000 times.
However, the track has yet to be installed over live utilities. Angus explained that utilities companies have agreed in principle that the CVLR track can be laid over their utilities. Yet, of the
nine-stage utility diversion process in the New Roads and Street Works Act, laying CVLR track over utilities is only at Stage 5.
As part of the track approval process, in April 2023, a 36-metre length of track was installed at the Council’s Whitley Depot facility to measure its performance under extreme conditions. Vibration sensors were fitted along this track as were weight-in-motion sensors to weigh vehicles. This data is being fed into a ‘digital twin’ computer model to evaluate the performance of the track over time. One million gross vehicle tonnes have now passed over this track which is performing beyond expectations. Angus advises that the data collected from this work shows that utilities under a VLR track slab experience around 25% of the force from an HGV compared with standard highway construction.
At a council meeting in September, it was anticipated that the 1.5km CVLR demonstrator track between the railway and bus stations would be completed by the end of 2025. However, this has now been reviewed and the plan is now to lay a 200-metre section of track to prove the concept ahead of the next stage. This will enable interested professionals and representatives from other cities interested in the CVLR system to be able to ride on the vehicle and experience it in the street scenario.
If it is possible to deliver the demonstration track at CLVR’s target cost of half that of a conventional tram system per kilometre, it may be possible to fund CVLR systems by private finance rather than relying on the public purse. If so, this would increase the number of towns and cities for which light rail systems are feasible. However, first there needs to be a successful demonstration of CVLR on Coventry’s streets to validate both its technology and business case. CVLR certainly has significant potential. If, in the long term, such systems become commonplace, Coventry deserves credit for pioneering the system. Indeed, if this happens, it will certainly get financial credit as the City Council owns 85% of the CVLR system’s intellectual property rights!
(Left) Humped track with 250-metre radius vertical curve.
(Below) CVLR track at Whitley Depot.
PHOTO: COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
Standardisation of embedded rail
for light-rail systems
Embedded rail is used on street-running tramways. The rail section used generally includes effectively a continuous checkrail (known as the keeper) and enables a clear boundary between the paved road surface and the tram running rail.
Grooved rail is far from standardised. Twenty-six rail sections are defined in EuroNorms and seven of these are adopted across the eight street-running light-rail systems in the UK and Ireland, with some systems having more than one grooved rail section in operation. Embedded street running track represents a total of just over 200km of rail (100km of track).
This was the introduction by Professor Adam Bevan from the Institute of Railway Research at the University of Huddersfield and welcomed by UK Tram’s Centre of Excellence in October 2024 (see panel).
Light-rail characteristics
Light-rail/tramway systems are generally characterised by sections of street running with embedded track and areas of reserved right of way where conventional ballasted track is usually employed. They typically
consist of tight radius curves (down to 18 metres), steep gradients, light axle loads, small wheel diameters, low speeds (50-70km/h), and frequent starts and stops.
The vehicles are usually equipped with magnetic track brakes so that the trams can stop short of sudden obstructions and are fitted with sanders to overcome poor adhesion caused by traffic debris and other contaminants. An obvious risk arises if the groove becomes blocked. Further challenges exist when it is desired to run from the tramway onto heavy rail infrastructure (known as Tram-Train) which is beyond the scope of this article.
Illustration of embedded rail used in a cobbled street (Olomouc, Czechia).
(Above) Grooved rail cross section vs conventional.
(Right) Grooved rail variations and length of various sections used in UK networks.
MALCOLM DOBELL
These conditions provide an arduous operating environment. The different lightrail networks are not homogeneous, with a large variation in operating conditions generally because of the need to adapt to local geography. Another factor has been that each system was developed separately, leading to a lack of standardised systems and components. There are short maintenance windows and, even though the tram service might be suspended overnight, it is not always possible to close the roads to other users. Embedded track is particularly hard and costly to replace, and the lack of standardisation often causes significant challenges when planning rail renewals resulting in higher costs and increased carbon footprint.
Due to the relatively small volumes, lead times on the procurement of grooved rails can be high as manufacturers wait for further larger orders to justify rolling a specific grooved rail section. These delays can allow rails to further degrade resulting in a potential safety risk and/or introduction of temporary speed restrictions leading to passenger delays and longer journey times. In addition, grooved rails are not currently manufactured in the UK and must be imported from Europe, meaning that the carbon footprint of transporting these rails to the UK is high.
Clearly, one way to prolong the life of the track is through efficient management of the wheel-rail interface. There are fundamental requirements to ensure that the wheelset fits the track, i.e., wheel flange width and height compatibility with the rail groove. Next is a requirement to manage the steering and lateral stability, something that is more challenging as many modern trams use independent rotating wheels. It is also possible that wheel-rail profiles chosen to manage stability and steering performance might generate higher contact stresses. This is something where vehicle dynamics simulations can be used to optimise conicity for a given system.
Standardisation
Back to the use of seven embedded rail sections. A DfT TRIG project (funded by the UK Government) was initiated in early 2024 aimed at identifying a grooved rail section which provides adequate performance across all UK and Ireland lightrail systems with on-street running. The project’s objectives were to:
» Define functional requirements and key performance indicators for grooved rails.
» Use a systems engineering approach to ensure all conflicting functional
requirements are optimised.
» Develop a solution scalable to cover light-rail systems outside UK.
It is hoped that a standardised grooved rail section will increase availability and manufacturability of grooved rails in the UK, reduce cost of track construction and renewals, increase the allowable wear capacity before rail replacement, and optimise the wheel-rail contact conditions to improve performance at the interface.
Success criteria
Understanding what is required is always key to the success of any project and in this case the objectives were: ease of installation related to the depth of concrete troughs on embedded track sections; ability to pre-coat rails; ease of aluminothermic welding on site, with rail height, foot width, and longitudinal moment of inertia as key parameters.
The characteristics of the grooved rail sections were analysed, considering these objectives and key functional dimensions such as section height/width, groove width/ depth, and gauge corner radius.
For conventional track, the maximum life of a rail is dependent on the amount of side and vertical head wear allowed.
For embedded rail there is an additional factor. As the head wears, the depth of the groove becomes shallower, so the limit on vertical head wear is typically dependent on the depth of the groove and the maximum wheel flange height permitted. In some cases, there is an opportunity to machine the bottom of the groove to extend rail life, but that possibility is limited to rail sections with specific designs of width, depth and thickness of the keeper section.
All these factors were considered to achieve a longer life while ensuring that the structural integrity of the rail section is maintained. The candidate standardised grooved rail design is proposed to have adequate groove depth so that users would not need to use groove grinding.
Availability and cost (first and over the life cycle) are also important factors, so making sure that the weight of the section (i.e., kg/metre) is not excessive. An important factor related to the weight of the section and the cross-sectional area, is the second moment of area. The second moment of area of a rail is an important property used in the calculation of the rail’s deflection and stresses caused by a moment applied to the rail during the passage of a train wheel. One of the most significant differences between the various rail sections in operation is the groove depth and width. As mentioned, groove depth governs the maximum level of vertical head wear before the wheel flange contacts the bottom of the rail groove. This is influenced by the wheel flange height which effectively increases as the wheel tread wears. Also, there’s a limit to how much side wear can be accommodated before there is contact between the flange back of the wheel and keeper of the opposite rail. This is also influenced by track gauge, wheel flange
(Above) Top: Wheel flange to groove depth relationship. Bottom: Keeper to flange face relationship.
wear, and wheelset back-to-back dimension. Once keeper rail contact does occur, the thickness of the keeper section is likely to dictate the remaining life of the rail or when significant maintenance intervention, such as rail gauge corner weld restoration, is required.
As if all this wasn’t enough, the usual wheel-rail interface issues of wheel tread and rail head profile shape and rail inclination need to be considered. Just under 40% of embedded rail is vertical with the remainder inclined at 1:40. A similar proportion uses a rail head gauge corner radius of 10mm, with the remainder at 13mm. The interaction of the rail crown radius and wheel tread cone angle influence the guidance on straight track / shallow curves by generating rolling radius difference, while the interaction of the rail gauge corner and wheel flange root radius influence the guidance in sharper curves.
A gauge corner radius that is similar to the wheel flange root radius promotes two-point contact between wheel and rail leading to lower conicity, potential for higher flange wear, and stability issues at higher speed. Conversely, a gauge corner radius that is smaller than the wheel flange root radius promotes single-point (conformal) contact, delivering moderate levels of conicity, even distribution of contact
across the rail, and good steering in moderate curves with controlled flange wear. Several options for standardisation are being considered, including selecting an existing section which meets the defined criteria, optimising an existing design to meet the defined criteria, or designing a completely new rail section. Novel rail sections without the traditional rail ‘web’ and ‘foot’ are also being considered. However, initial discussions with key industry stakeholders suggests that utilising an existing design would be the preferrable option. A candidate profile has therefore been recommended which promises to deliver on the objectives identified above.
Next steps
As with many research projects, there is more work to do before tramway operators can adopt a standard grooved rail. The project team is discussing findings so far with light rail operators combined authorities and other transport executives. It is also looking at opportunities to further optimise the candidate design, while assessing the economic viability of UK manufacturing which could dramatically reduce the carbon emissions associated with the transportation of rails.
Rail Engineer wishes them well in this initiative that should help to reduce lightrail costs.
“This is just the sort of project that the Centre of Excellence is keen to support. Unlike the Heavy Rail industry where everything is required to conform to national standards, Light Rail has a number of areas where standardisation is difficult because of slight differences between systems. In correspondence with German Rail Engineers some of their tramways face the same problem as the UK in that they are all different and not standardised.
“Grooved Track form is therefore the ideal area for the industry to cooperate through such standardisation and this study will allow us to start to move to a much more cost efficient and effective way of procuring embedded track for both new systems and existing system renewals and potentially reduce the lead time on a specific product. There are also non-technical areas that will require consideration such as integration between the system owners and maintainers through the Light Rail Engineers Group and the Local Authorities Procurement Regulations but the case for change should highlight the benefits.
“UK Tram and the Light Rail Safety and Standards Bureau (LRSSB) have been involved from the start with UK Tram’s lead engineer Phil Terry and Craig O’Brien from LRSSB monitoring progress.”
(Right) Current UK embedded rail sections and candidate section.
Colin Robey, chair of UK Tram’s Centre of Excellence, observed:
Injury prevention requires INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY
The number of UK rail workers suffering serious injuries is increasing. Yes, the railways are inherently dangerous, but health and safety has never been higher on the agenda, so why are the figures not falling?
In September, the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) released its 2024 Rail Safety Report. It found that severe injuries (the most serious reportable injuries) rose by nearly a quarter to 1,727 in the last year.
Likewise, workforce injuries on the mainline were up 4% to 4,456, while 1,063 were reported on the London Underground alone, an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months.
So, where are we going wrong? Slips, trips, and falls remain the highest cause of injuries in both rail depots and on the London Underground. This is particularly concerning in areas where the third rail is still prevalent and is rarely deactivated for routine maintenance to take place.
The experts at Sheffield-based depot safety specialist, Zonegreen, believe investment in technology can drive down the number of serious incidents taking place across the industry by removing the margin for human error.
The firm – part of international safety group, Sentric – has spent almost 20 years establishing itself as a global leader in depot protection, with facilities as far afield as Australia, New Zealand, and the United Arab Emirates benefiting from its expertise.
Christian Fletcher, Zonegreen’s head of engineering, said: “The incredibly dangerous third rail was conceived in Victorian times, yet is still prevalent in the south’s underground and metro systems and can ultimately prove fatal if touched.
“Despite knowing it carries 750 volts, engineers regularly walk alongside the live system on uneven terrain, in varying weather conditions and sometimes in the dead of night to carry out maintenance. Could there be any better reason for implementing adequate measures to ensure these people can operate in the safest possible environment?
“Sadly, there is still no industry-wide picture of the wide-ranging risks in depots and with highspeed vehicles, high voltage equipment, and powerful machinery all increasing the dangers workers face, it is clear more still needs to be done to improve working conditions.”
Prioritising depot safety
Zonegreen develops technology that reduces the risks faced by depot staff, while allowing the safe and efficient control of rail vehicles.
The firm’s flagship Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS) is installed in some of the most advanced maintenance facilities around the world, protecting people from plant and vehicle movements.
Personnel using the latest iteration of the system are issued with contactless RFID cards that can be programmed with various levels of authorisation, depending on the individual’s role and position within the depot operations hierarchy. When beginning work in an area of risk, they log on to road end panels that prevent Network Rail-approved derailers from being lowered, providing physical protection by stopping trains entering the occupied road.
Access permission must be given to a train by a supervisor, via the controlling road end panel, which is positioned at a convenient location within the maintenance building. This is usually next to the depot doors, giving the operator a clear view of incoming and outgoing vehicles. Only after the derailer has been lowered will the shunt signal change to ‘proceed.’ Audible and visual warnings are then activated to alert staff to imminent vehicle movement.
Zonegreen’s system is one of the safest on the market, boasting independent certification to prove its compliance with both the hardware and software integrity requirements of SIL 2 – a reliability assessment of the relative risk reduction provided by a safety system. It is also the most thoroughly tested and proven in use, offering a low-risk option to depots looking to improve their working environment.
In addition, Zonegreen’s third generation DPPS RFID panel has been independently certified by Eurofins to be compliant with both the EN 300 330-V2.1.1 radio emissions standard and railway standard EN50128/50129.
Reliability and traceability
Included within the DPPS package is Zonegreen’s advanced Depot Manager SCADA software, which offers an overview of the entire protection system and complete traceability. It displays the location of personnel and the status of plant and equipment, while providing key information to make operations easier and quicker to implement.
For example, the technology can identify peak movement times, allowing additional focus to be placed on safety during these highest risk periods. The system also provides additional visualisation that can run alongside other depot control software to ensure a complete operational picture.
Christian added: “We are working constantly to find new ways to develop and extend our DPPS technology to help depots reduce costs and most importantly, save lives. We future-proof our systems by using modern electronics and an innovative software design that makes them easier to modify and expand. This has improved the user experience, consolidated the safety benefits, and allowed for potential upgrades, something a number of depots have taken advantage of recently.”
Pointing safety in the right direction
Manual hand points are a significant contributory factor to the types of slips, trips, and falls in depots that result in serious injury and absences from work, costing operators and the economy millions of pounds.
To address this issue, Zonegreen has developed Points Converter. The system allows existing manual points to be operated remotely, without compromising their integrity, from a conveniently located handset, preventing handling injuries and exposure to hidden dangers, such as the third rail. It also incorporates event logging technology that enables Depot Manager to keep a record of their operation.
Earlier this year, Zonegreen installed two Points Converters at East Midlands Railway’s Eastcroft depot in Nottingham, taking the total number of automated points at the depot to three. (A single Points Converter was added to the head shunt two years ago.) The latest installations are situated on the west end of the carriage sidings and the original handset, located in the control room, was upgraded to operate all three machines.
The updates at Eastcroft are a perfect example of how Zonegreen future-proofs its technology, allowing it to be expanded to suit the changing needs of each depot. The system is now playing a crucial role in enhancing the safety of EMR staff and eliminating many of the stops and starts necessary when moving vehicles around.
Safety in numbers
As part of the Sentric Safety Group, Zonegreen has the opportunity and tools to expand its portfolio worldwide. It joins international safety brands, Castell, Kirk, STI, and Salvo, to protect people who work in high-risk environments. These respected brands have united together in the belief that there can be no compromise when it comes to safety.
Gemma Houghton, Sentric’s head of rail, commented: “Our mission is to ensure the long-term protection of people, productivity and business reputation. Zonegreen is a perfect ambassador for our group, doing exactly that through the development of innovative technology and vast sector experience.
“We are extremely proud of the innovative rail safety solutions Zonegreen provides to depots across the world and it was a pleasure to be part of the team introducing them to visitors at this year’s InnoTrans.
“Zonegreen’s reputation continues to grow, yet it remains focused on upholding the excellent, long-term relationships it has with clients. This includes leading brands such as Network Rail, Siemens and Hitachi, to name but a few.”
To find out more about DPPS, Points Converter, or Zonegreen’s suite of depot safety systems, telephone (0114) 230 0822, visit www.sentricsafetygroup.com/sector/railway-safety-solutions, or follow on LinkedIn: Zonegreen Ltd.
Sydney Metro: transforming the city for generations to come
One of the focus themes of this issue is metro railway systems, and in this article we look at Sydney Metro – the first driverless metro railway in Australia. But to begin, what exactly is a metro railway?
Unlike other railways, metros only carry passengers and provide a more intense train service. They generally exist in cities and built-up areas, and can vary in size from a few kilometres to the metros in Tokyo, Beijing, or New York, for example, which are hundreds of route-kilometres in route length. Metros can move millions of people over relatively short distances, and operate intensely, often seven days a week, with minimal engineering time available for maintenance.
To achieve this, metro systems must be carefully designed and be very reliable and resilient. They need to be structured and integrated with other transport modes so that the densely populated areas they serve can operate efficiently.
Metro systems typically use Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) as the signalling system. CBTC uses telecoms radio links between the train and trackside equipment, which allows a train’s position to be known more accurately than with traditional signalling systems. This can make metros more efficient with reduced headways.
A CBTC system is capable of providing Automatic Train Protection (ATP), as well as
Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and Automatic Train Supervision (ATS). However, as metro systems are self-contained in a fixed area there is no requirement for interoperability. This means CBTC systems are ‘bespoke’ manufacturers’ systems with no interworking between suppliers’, unlike main line ETCS (European Train Control System). In many metros the headways are so short that the train service can only operate using ATO.
Traditional signalling systems detect trains in discrete sections of the track called ‘blocks’, each protected by signals to prevent a train entering an occupied block. In a moving block CBTC system the protected section for each train is a ‘block’ that moves with the train, with continuous communication of the train’s exact position provided via radio. The CBTC trains continuously calculate and communicate their status to the trackside equipment, including the exact position, speed, travel direction, and braking distance of the train.
Trains on metro systems generally move relatively slowly, compared to ‘main line’ trains, but they accelerate and brake more quickly. They tend to be of the same type
PAUL DARLINGTON
ALL PHOTOS: JAMES TOMLINSON
and configuration, which means they have the similar acceleration, braking and top speed characteristics; and there are no slower moving freight trains to get in way!
There are generally fewer points, crossings and complicated junctions in a metro and, in general, there are no connections to neighbouring railways. Being self-contained and ‘closed systems’ means that it's easier, in some respects, to implement innovative and creative engineering solutions than in more open main line railways systems. Sounds easy, so what’s the problem? Well, a metro train can typically carry several hundred people in peak periods, with trains arriving seconds apart at busy interchange stations. Safely managing that many people, often in confined spaces, raises challenges which must be addressed, and this intensity of use means metros must be very reliable and resilient.
Sydney Metro
The initial Sydney alignment (Northwest and City & Southwest) will ultimately have 31 metro railway stations and be a 66km standalone metro railway system, with planned capacity of a metro train every two minutes in each direction under the Sydney city centre. There are
» Western Sydney Airport Metro (Six stations and 23km in length).
» Sydney West Metro (Nine stations and 24km in length).
GOA0 On-sight No automation
GOA1 Manual
GOA2 Semi-automatic Train Operation (STO)
GOA3 Driverless Train Operation (DTO)
A train driver controls starting and stopping, operation of the doors, and handling of any emergencies.
Starting and stopping of trains are automated, but a driver operates the doors, drives the train if needed and handles emergencies.
Starting and stopping are automated, but a train attendant operates the doors and drives the train in case of emergencies.
GOA4 Unattended Train Operation (UTO)
Starting and stopping, and operation of the doors is all fully automated without any on-train staff. Normally stations have platform screen doors provided.
The first Sydney Metro network is made up of a number of sections. The Metro North West Line (formerly the planned 36km North West Rail Link) services started in May 2019 in the city’s North West between Rouse Hill and Chatswood, with a metro train running every four minutes in the peak. With 21 stations on 22 miles (36km) of twin tracks, and much of the line underground, it was signalled by Alstom using its Urbalis 400 CBTC system. This Grade of Automation (GOA) 4 system is fundamental for smooth efficient driverless operation. See Table 1 for an explanation of GOA.
GOA4 is not simply a train that drives itself. The functions normally provided by a human train operator or driver and a signaller are replaced by a digital system of interacting hardware and software systems. These must achieve an outcome at least as good as a human train operator/driver and signaller. So, there are many other things which need to be addressed, such as noting track defects, infrastructure failures, severe weather conditions, things on the track, and train evacuation in an emergency.
Sydney Metro City & Southwest
The Sydney Metro City & Southwest section includes a new 30km metro line extending metro rail from the end of the Metro North West Line at Chatswood, under Sydney Harbour, through new, very impressive, iconic stations, and southwest to Bankstown, with an ultimate capacity capability to run a metro train every two minutes each way through the centre of Sydney. This is known as the City Section and recently opened. In addition to the new metro stations at Crows Nest, Victoria Cross, Barangaroo, Martin Place, Pitt Street (renamed Gadagel), Waterloo, and new underground metro platforms at Central Station, 11 existing stations between Sydenham and Bankstown were upgraded to impressive metro standards.
Table 1. Grade Of Automation – GOA
The second stage to extend the line to Bankstown on an existing ‘brown field’ railway is now underway, with completion in late 2025. The work required is so significant with, for example, new platform screen doors on curved platforms and upgrade from GOA1 to unattended train operation GOA4, that the line is currently nonoperational. This is along a route of some 15km all of which is at-grade, so a GOA1 to GOA4 upgrade of this scale is probably unique and a world first.
With the route being an existing one, the curved platforms provide a challenge for the screen door design with, for example, mechanical gap fillers and obstacle detectors required to enable the provision of an inclusive environment for all train and station users. An inclusive environment is one that can be used by everyone, regardless of age, gender or disability.
The line runs parallel with the Australian Rail Track Corporation freight corridor for approximately 50% of its length before reverting back to two lines for the remaining 7km. The line also experiences a significant amount of trespass. This will require appropriate measures such as intrusion detection and fencing to ensure the GOA4 line and the UTO corridor is fully protected.
The requirements for the extension from Chatswood and the building of the Metro City & Southwest were multi-faceted. The metro will provide greater connectivity into the city from the northwest, which is an expanding growth area, to alleviate existing traffic congestion in the south, thus enabling enhanced services on the City Circle line and at the same time increase economic development opportunities along the southwest corridor.
The Sydney Metro City & Southwest project has differing challenges. The City section involved the introduction of ‘integrated station developments’ but the Southwest section requires the conversion of an operational railway, and to minimise the time between the cessation of the existing Sydney Trains operations and the introduction of new GOA4 operations – which is easier said than done.
The Bankstown line has been in operation for over 100 years and many of the stations are heritage listed, which severely constrains the amount of civil and structural changes that are allowed to take place. This resulted in eight of the 10 stations with curved platforms being retained. This constraint, along with the need to make the metro system fully Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant, and the metro rolling stock being 150mm narrower than the old trains, has added to the complexity of the conversion in the station areas involving the platform screen doors.
All of this means that a significant amount of the existing infrastructure in the corridor must be retained and made to operate under metro operations whist at the same time to deliver the existing operational and customer service requirements. There was also a requirement from government that the Sydney Trains operations on the line continued for as long as possible, so it wasn’t easy to implement many of the changes required for metro working in advance of the final shutdown.
While new traction substations are being provided along the corridor, much of the existing overhead catenary line and equipment and all of the structures will be retained. By applying a process that demonstrates the assets meet reliability, availability, and maintainability targets, Sydney Metro has proven that these assets will comply with the key performance measures for metro operation and are fit for the purpose intended. This same process has also been applied for the track, cuttings, embankments, and retaining walls.
Pre-shut down works
The pre-shut down works involved testing and performance proving of systems, plus specialised product development, acceptance, and approvals together with early integration testing where possible. The majority of the platform rebuilds and station refurbishments were carried out. This included raising the platforms to ensure horizontal alignment for the new metro trains to manage the train to platform interface for future operations and ensure DDA compliance. Other works carried out included the facilitation of the future platform screen doors and mechanical gap fillers which could only be installed during the shutdown period.
Other works included systems such as Public Address (PA), visual customer information systems, CCTV and help points, plus the installation of Building Management Control Systems (BMCS) and fire systems. An exception was Bankstown which cannot be completed due to the need to physically separate Sydney Trains network from Sydney Metro at the station and install a new at grade concourse between the two operations.
A new 11kV High Voltage (HV) distribution system has been installed to provide the low voltage power requirements for all stations as well as the equipment rooms in the stations and along the corridor. Other corridor protection activities included the installation of anti-climb and anti-throw screens on bridges, plus the provision of a corridor intrusion detection system to be
completed during the shutdown period.
During the Christmas and New Year period of 2019/2020, the existing lines from Bankstown were diverted to arrive at Platforms 3 and 4 at Sydenham Station, thus freeing the existing Sydney Trains Platforms 1 and 2 for future metro operations. A Common Services Route (CSR) was provided for the cable containment for high voltage (33kV and 11kV), signalling and telecoms cables. There were challenges with providing the CSR which required close liaison and agreement between Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro due to the route being 2.5 metres high, which impeded access to the live operational assets.
Between Sydenham and Campsie, access was only on the down side due to the ARTC freight line running along the same route and the need to provide a segregation fence between the two operators. This meant the cable route could only be constructed on the down side.
Sydney Metro required three new turnouts located at Bankstown, Campsie, and Sydenham, plus two existing Sydney Trains turnouts at Campsie to be renewed and retained. The new turnouts had to be clamped, locked, and detected by the Sydney Trains signalling system but not integrated into the Sydney Trains control. Extensive static testing of the metro operational systems (signalling, communications, radio, and station systems) has been carried out as far as possible throughout the last two years.
This required considerable coordinated cooperation between Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro as access was constrained to a three-to-five-hour window.
International delivery
With the line now closed, work is finally underway to fully convert the legacy railway line to unattended GOA4 metro operation, including the installation of the platform screen doors and mechanical gap fillers for the curved platforms, plus the corridor wide intrusion detection system consisting of fibre cable and CCTV cameras.
Sydney Metro has looked for the best expertise and systems from around the world to deliver its iconic GOA4 metro system. This includes engineers from the UK as well as international engineers and suppliers.
This once-in-a-century metro infrastructure investment programme will transform Sydney for generations to come, doubling rail capacity, linking new communities to metro rail services and supporting employment growth and housing supply. It’s a tricky programme involving greenfield new lines, iconic new stations, and converting legacy railway lines to GOA4 unattended operation, but it is a great example of how intense metro rail systems are essential for a modern city to function.
Many thanks to Steve Allday for his assistance with this article.
CARLISLE CRASH OF 1984
what can we learn?
Forty years ago, on Tuesday 1 May 1984 at 5.30 in the morning, Bill (Willie) Taylor, a signaller at Carlisle Power Signal Box (PSB) realised that 4S55, a Liverpool (Garston) to Glasgow (Gushetfaulds) freightliner train had become divided south of Carlisle and both portions of the train were rolling downhill towards Carlisle Citadel station. The freightliner train was carrying dangerous, highly-explosive chemical goods, including toxic tetraethyl lead compound - the treatment used in leaded petrol, and 750 bags of oxalinic acid. Using his signaller’s knowledge and experience, Bill switched the uncoupled wagons onto the empty Carlisle Goods Avoiding Line and avoided disaster. Four decades later, what has changed in the industry and what can we learn from incidents of the past?
The freightliner had stopped earlier at Preston with dragging brakes. The train received attention, but after closing the air brake valves half-way down the train and rectifying the problem, the valves were not reopened, nor was a continuity brake test undertaken. It is believed that the screw couplings between Wagons 5 and 6 were also not stowed away properly and were left swinging. Once over the top at Shap Summit, the coupling between Wagons 5 and 6 probably went slack and the swinging coupling struck an AWS magnet in the four-foot. The coupling was lifted upwards and the train divided with no brakes on the rear 10 wagons of the 15-wagon train.
Bill Taylor spotted the irregular indications on his panel and realised he had a divided runaway train. The locomotive and the front part of the freight train were allowed to run forward safely into Carlisle station and signalled to a stop. After seeing that the leading part of the train had passed Upperby Bridge Junction, Bill switched
the points to divert the runaway portion onto a freight-only line bypassing the station. The rear divided wagons made it around the sharp right curve onto Denton Holme Bridge before crashing through the bridge and into the River Caldew. If you search on YouTube for ‘Carlisle Crash’, Rail Engineer’s Graeme Bickerdike has produced an excellent video report of the incident.
There was significant wreckage with much of the train in the river, but nobody was hurt. It did take weeks to clear the route, and the bridge was so badly damaged that the route was closed. Probably because there was no one hurt, the main railway through Carlisle was not affected, and there were no main passenger service disruptions, the incident is not as well-known as other more harmful incidents. However, it is important that the rail industry retains its corporate memory and learns from the past. So, what has changed since 1984?
PHOTO: CUMBRIAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
PAUL DARLINGTON
Counselling
After the incident, Bill finished his shift as normal in the morning and was sent home. He spent most of the day being interviewed by TV and newspapers and then was back on his shift that same night. Thankfully, the post-incident counselling and therapy processes in place today are much improved.
Signallers have to remain calm and concentrate at all times. They have to know and apply the operational rules ‘to the book’, hour after hour, day after day. But in the event of an incident such as Carlisle they have to think quickly, assertively, and calmly put control measures in place.
Bill was able to take the action he did in May 1984 because he had what we know today as ‘non-technical’ skills. For a signaller, these include outstanding communication skills, a strong sense of responsibility, and the ability to work under pressure and make systematic decisions in a timely fashion.
Bill also had extensive local knowledge of the Carlisle area. Having started his railway career as a ‘knocker up’ moving on to be a ‘box lad’ booking train movements, he then became a relief signaller and had worked at most of the 46 mechanical signal boxes in the Carlisle area, which proceeded Carlise Power Signal Box (PSB). So, he knew the area like the back of his hand. With signallers today looking after huge signalling areas and not having the opportunity to work locally like Bill did, it’s unlikely they would be able to acquire and retain the level of local knowledge that he had.
Carlisle PSB was constructed in the 1970s and the signallers control interface is known as a NX or ‘Entrance- Exit’ panel. To clear a signal the signaller presses and releases a button at the Entrance (N) of the route followed by another button at the next signal ahead, known as the Exit (X) of the route. The panels are typically a few metres long so, in 1984, Bill could see the route set for the train and its movement along the line, as well as the train dividing, by observing the track circuit indications on the panel.
While Carlisle PSB still operates using an NX panel for the time being, other more modern signalling control centres use far smaller electronic displays, and they cover a much larger area. Therefore, should a similar incident occur today, it’s unlikely a signaller would be in a position to take the action Bill Taylor did at Carlisle.
Swiss cheese model
When managing safety risk and hazards the important principle is to eliminate hazards well before other controls are required, such as diverting a divided train onto an empty line.
The hazard and incident at Carlisle occurred because: (i) the air brake valves were not reopened after the train had received attention at Preston; (ii) a brake test was not undertaken; and (iii) the screw couplings between the wagons had not been stowed away properly and were left swinging. This is a classic ‘Swiss cheese’ model of incident causation.
The Swiss cheese model likens systems to multiple slices of Swiss cheese, which has randomly placed and sized holes in each slice, stacked side by side. The principle of this is that lapses and weaknesses in one defence (a hole in the cheese) do not allow a risk to materialise. The other defences are represented by the other slices of cheese and only when a hole in each slice of the stack aligns with holes in all other slices have all the defences failed and an incident occurs.
So, in the case of the incident at Carlisle, the lack of a brake test when the train was stopped at Preston was the main and most important defence to prevent the train dividing and the wagons running away to Carlisle. This is very much the same today.
Brake continuity testing
The testing of a train’s braking system before a train moves remains an extremely important defence against a runaway train. The Rail Accident Investigation Board (RAIB) says that even when a braking system is functioning correctly, a failure to operate it properly can lead to safety problems. With any work involving a train’s braking system, or following the addition or removal of vehicles forming a train, a brake continuity test should always be carried out. Train drivers are also required to carry out a running brake test to check that adequate retardation can be achieved.
The Carlisle PSB ‘Entrance-Exit’ panel where Bill Taylor saw the divided train and diverted the unbraked wagons onto another empty line.
PHOTO: PAUL DARLINGTON
At Edinburgh in 2019, the driver of an overnight sleeper train was unable to stop their train which ran 650 metres past its intended station call. The RAIB investigation found that when the train was split earlier in the journey a valve in the brake pipe was inadvertently closed, causing the brakes on the coaches to be inoperable, which was also the cause of the Carlisle crash in 1984. A brake continuity test had been carried out, but before the train’s brake pipe valve was closed. RAIB recommended changes to the operating rules so that the brake continuity test is always carried out after all other duties.
The need for brake continuity tests to be the final duty undertaken before departure was further demonstrated in an incident at Crofton West Junction in 2020. In this incident, a freight train was prepared for departure, including a brake continuity test. However, after the train preparation was completed, a group of trainees and an instructor visited the sidings and used the train to practise train preparation procedures. This led to the brake pipe valves between the locomotive and the wagons being closed, rendering the air brakes on the wagons nonoperational, just like the incident at Carlisle in 1984. This was not detected before the train moved off and the driver was unable to stop the train when they encountered restrictive signals. The train passed two signals at danger and crossed a junction which was being protected by one of the signals.
Corporate memory
The rail industry is a complicated system that is constantly changing and improving, and the industry must always look forwards to innovate and find new ways of doing things. It is also important that the industry remembers and learns from the past, as we have hopefully demonstrated in this article.
Learning is difficult enough on a personal basis and in an industry like rail it can be even harder. The companies and organisations involved are many and it’s difficult to retain the corporate memory as people move on or join the industry. When someone with 30 years’ experience retires,
the industry doesn’t just lose 30 years’ knowledge and experience, it also loses what the person retiring has learned from those who retired soon after they started. This makes it more like 50-60 or more years of knowledge and experience lost.
To help rail’s corporate memory, RSSB has a number of things which can help. The quarterly update on progress against the Leading Health and Safety on Britain’s Railway (LHSBR) allows trends to be monitored from sources such as the Safety Management Intelligence System (SMIS), daily incident logs and other information sources. It also provides a forum for updates on the work being done to address risk areas highlighted by the safety indicators and investigation reports.
RSSB provides learning via its series of safety films and Right Track magazine. It also tracks overseas rail incidents through the monthly Rail Accident and Incident News and Rail Investigation Summary documents. The relevant incidents and report findings from each are added to the regular risk papers used by the various crossindustry risk groups. These cover topics such as train accidents, level crossings, station safety, and freight operation.
Rail Safety Review helps those with an overview of safety consider the points raised with regards to their safety management system arrangements. This is not limited to rail as there is much that can be learned from other industries, such as the Nimrod air crash of 2006, the Boeing 737 MAX incident of 2019, and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion of 2010.
It is not unheard of to find that an overseas situation in rail has been seen in Britain before, and that the industries hazard control mitigations are adequate. But the rail industry in Britain must never stop checking itself against other industries, other railways, or learning from the past.
A lot has changed since 1984 and the Carlisle crash, and the actions of Bill Taylor resulted in it being a largely forgotten incident. However, as we have shown, the need to always carry out a brake continuity test as the final duty before departure of a train has not changed.
INNOTRANS 2024
Over 2,900 exhibitors from 59 nations. Forty-two halls with a total floor area of 120,000 square metres and a kilometre long site that has threeand-a-half kilometres of track displaying over a hundred rail vehicles. That’s InnoTrans 2024.
Over three days, your writer walked 24,000 steps per day and probably only saw half of it. Getting the best from InnoTrans certainly requires comfortable shoes.
This year, InnoTrans attracted 170,000 visitors from 133 countries and showcased 226 new products. It also offered a full programme of lectures and panel discussions. New this year
was an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mobility Lab which covered robotics, data protection, and cybersecurity. Another new event was a railway influencer Festival for influencers, bloggers and YouTubers.
Opening ceremony
Speaking at the opening ceremony, German Federal Minister for Digital & Transport Dr Volker Wissing advised that €18.1 billion was to be invested in the German rail network in 2025 as part of a programme to improve and enhance 1,500 route-km over the next three years. As part of this, the 70km line between Frankfurt and Mannheim has been closed for five months for upgrades including ETCS fitment.
Wissing considered the rapid rollout of ETCS to be a priority, in part because changing signalling systems when crossing
DAVID SHIRRES
borders was not acceptable. He also wished to see digital automatic couplers introduced to transform rail freight operations and encourage modal shift from road to rail. However, he accepted that this would require EU support.
The opening ceremony included a panel discussion entitled ’From Hype to Reality –AI in the Mobility Sector’ which included Michael Peter, CEO of Siemens Mobility, Alstom’s CEO Henri Poupart-Lafarge and the CEO of CAF, Javier Ojinaga. It was agreed that there is a need to cut through the hype as AI is not needed for everything. It was felt AI offered significant benefits for maintenance, failure prediction, energy efficiency, traffic management, and software development and there was agreement on the need for open data.
A study commissioned by the European rail industry association UNIFE shows that the total world rail market is €202 billion which includes €77 billion on services, €38 billion for infrastructure, €22 billion on rail control systems, and €63 billion for rolling stock. Over the next five years it is predicted to grow by 3.0% annually. The detailed study is available for €2,850 excluding VAT.
UK stands
There were over 100 UK companies at InnoTrans. Of these, 20 were in two UK pavilions organised by the Railway Industry Association (RIA). Prior to InnoTrans, RIA had organised briefings for companies new to the event.
Together with the Department for Business and Trade, RIA had also arranged ‘Meet the Trade Advisor’ sessions in which over 150 companies met one of 24 trade advisers who had been flown to Berlin from British Embassies around the world including Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, Argentina, the USA, Egypt, and Canada. RIA’s reception at the British Embassy in Berlin also provided a good networking opportunity.
Industry Wales had its own group of stands which included the Global Centre for Rail Excellence (GCRE) which signed various agreements for companies to use its facilities at InnoTrans.
Many UK companies had their own stands. These included consultants AtkinsRéalis and Mott MacDonald; compressor manufacturers Mattei; Senceive, whose landslide monitoring tiltmeters are maintenance free for 15 years; and Southco, with
hundreds of access hardware products on display including novel latching systems.
UNIPART’s stand featured many of its companies including Gripple which launched its OLE rail dropper at the InnoTrans 2022. Other UNIPART companies are mentioned below.
AI
The AI mobility lab provided an area for suppliers offering AI-based solutions. Two British companies there were Transmission Dynamics which demonstrated its ‘Trains with Brains’ innovations, and Instrumentel, which is part of the Unipart group and displayed its ThermOptic Insight system which detects rolling stock faults using cameras and lineside thermal radiometry.
(L to R) CEOs of Alstom, CAF and Siemens Mobility at the opening ceremony.
Two other UK companies were demonstrating how they apply AI to forward facing video streams to monitor lineside assets. These were Crosstech with its Hubble platform and One Big Circle with its AIVR product suite.
Various stands were demonstrating systems to monitor passenger movement. The passenger counting system developed by Canadian company Infodev uses AI to interpret data from sensors and cameras to achieve 99.8% accuracy. This system can be used for various purposes and can detect whether passengers are carrying hot drinks.
Passenger rolling stock
Of rolling stock on display there were: 49 widely varied items of on track plant; 23 types of wagons; six trams; two metro trains; 17 passenger units or coaches; and 13 locomotives, including three shunters. Although there was less promotion of hydrogen than at the previous InnoTrans, there was a hydrogen-powered passenger train, tram, and shunting locomotive together with various battery powered vehicles on display.
High-speed trains on display included Hitachi’s latest 400km/h ETR1000 Frecciarossa and a ‘sandproofed’ 230km/h Siemens Velaro for Egypt’s planned 2,000 km high-speed network. The 200km/h hydrogen-powered Chinese CRRC CINOVA train has a range of 1,200km. Batterypowered trains on display included Stadler’s RS Zero, which can also be powered by hydrogen, the Siemens Mireo, and the Croatian Koncar’s battery EMU which has a plug-in fast charger.
Talgo was displaying its 230 km/hr BR105 which will power push-pull trains consisting of 17 low-floor coaches which are due to enter service on Deutsche Bahn in December. One of these coaches, with its single axle articulation, was on display at Talgo’s stand.
Freight
The locomotives on display are generally used for freight services. These were almost all electrically powered, though many were bi-modes with diesel engines. The Alstom built TRAXX locomotives are quadruplevoltage machines (1.5/3.0kV DC and 15/25kV AC) to operate under almost all European electrification schemes.
Siemens had two of its 160km/ hr bi-mode Vectron locomotives on display. One of these was a Vectron light locomotive with a 21-tonne axle load. This has a 750kW diesel engine for last mile and shunting operations. In contrast, the standard Vectron has a 2,400kW engine and 22.5-tonne axle load.
Vossloh displayed its Modula heavy duty shunting locomotives that can operate on the main line. These modular locomotives have various combinations of traction packages: electric (15kV/25kV), diesel or battery traction. A hydrogen-powered Modula was also on display.
Bulgarian Express Service unveiled its 48-tonne, three-axle ES3000 shunting locomotive which has a battery capacity of 220kWh giving it a nominal power of 90kW enabling it to tow 3,000 tonnes.
Of particular interest to UK visitors was the unveiling of the bi-mode Class 99 built by Stadler for GB Railfreight. This was funded by Beacon which signed a contract for 30 of these locomotives in April 2022. These 120 km/h locomotives have a power of 6MW on electrified lines and 1,800kW from their diesel engine. At their unveiling, GB Railfreight CEO John Smith
Class 99
Single axle articulated Talgo coach
noted that: “the Class 99s represent a game-changing moment for the UK rail freight industry as they offer customers wholly sustainable, heavy haul services across the country.”
A typical freight haul using the West Coast Main Line involves around 30 miles of non-electrified routes. The Class 99 will be able to haul trains over these lines and then make the best use of the electrified network. John advises that a typical diesel hauled freight train climbs the WCML’s northern fells at around 55km/h whereas the Class 99 is expected do this climb at 100km/h. Hence, as well as decarbonising the UK freight sector, the Class 99 offers significant business benefits. The most expensive freight project presented at InnoTrans is the proposed fitment of digital automatic couplers (DAC) to Europe’s almost half million freight wagons. DAC’s productivity and operational benefits support the EU’s goal of increasing rail’s share of freight transport from 18% to 30% by 2030. To date the coupler design has been finalised and it is planned to run several ‘pioneer’ digitally-coupled freight trains in 2026.
justified especially as DAC is not required to deliver many of its benefits. Although Knorr-Bremse has a significant involvement in the DAC initiative, its stand also featured a system with wagons having axle generators and secure wireless communication in the trainset to offer, for example, elecropneumatic braking and locked wheel detection.
The Slovakian company Tatravagonka had various innovative wagons on display. Its Grainbox wagon had a removable body to enable grain from Ukraine to be easily transferred onto container flats at the change of gauge between Ukrainian 1,520mm gauge and European standard gauge. The company’s stand featured its TVP HG2 140km/hr freight bogie and a video of their cathodic dip bogie treatment process.
However, fitting DACs to Europe’s wagon fleet is an expensive project which requires yet-to-be allocated EU funding. At an InnoTrans DAC presentation some were not convinced that its cost is
Signalling
Signalling products on display included Siemen’s Signaling X, Frauscher’s latest axle counters, Stadler’s NOVA, and EUROINTERLOCKING products as well as various presentations.
The UNIFE stand hosted a presentation on efficient migration strategies for ERTMS. This considered the challenges of countries having different long life-cycle infrastructure with their own historic operational concepts, complex authorisation processes, and the need to transition for Single European Railway Area (SERA) to nonSERA areas. The presentation noted that 50,000 trains need to be ETCS equipped with most requiring type approval, and that freight trains run through different countries with different versions of ETCS software that are not fully compatible. It highlighted the need for migration strategies and legacy protocols for ERTMS implementation which will take up to 2036 and beyond.
The Stadler stand showcased both its signalling and rolling stock products. Stadler’s NOVA Pro offers driverless communication-based train control (CBTC) and will soon be used on the Waldenburg railway near Basel. When used at depots, NOVA offers fully automatic driverless shunting operations. For light rail vehicles and trams, Smartsense system provides high-quality object recognition to provide advanced driver assistance system. The company also exhibited its newly developed EUROLOCKING modular electronic interlocking system which is a scalable system to replace hardwarebased interlocking systems with a digital platform using IT architectures with EULYNX standards.
The Frauscher stand had information about the RSR360 axle counter that it is developing. This detects axles by analysing the indicative waveform pattern as wheels pass over the sensor. This will give it a significantly higher signal-tonoise ratio than conventional axle counters with a higher immunity to electromagnetic interference. It will be particularly suited where trains have magnetic track brakes. The
Digital Automatic Coupler on the Knorr-Bremse stand
RSR360 also has reduced weight and an improved rail claw design for easier fitment.
Frauscher also launched its new point control system at InnoTrans. This is a wayside object controller to control point machines as commanded by the interlocking with a standard EULYNX interface. It also monitors factors such as motor current, voltage, and power to monitor the health of each point machine.
The Siemens stand saw the launch of the company’s new cloud-based Signaling X platform which integrates multiple signalling systems to provide seamless management from a single signalling data centre. This uses standard application programming interfaces which provides for the optimisation of rail operations and more integration with other systems such as train planning. This offers significant operational improvements and a more flexible system due to its virtualisation and georedundancy. This platform uses Siemens Mobility’s Distributed Smart Safety System (DS3) which ensures that safety-critical applications are run in a secure cloud-based environment.
A signalling innovation for little-used lines was on display at the UNIPART stand. This was the ‘Request to Stop’ system developed by Comms Design which is part of the UNIPART group. This can operate on
GSM-R or a Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) radio network. The RETB variant uses a cab display radio, while the GSM-R variant uses a mobile handset to display stop notifications to the driver or guard. The system provides a Customer Information Screen (CIS) displaying a live timetable and confirmation that a stop has been requested. For each unnecessary stop it saves 70 seconds and six litres of fuel. This system is in use on Scotland’s Far North lines.
Another member of the UNIPART group, Dorman had its LED colour light signals on display.
Track
A large variety of new on-track machines were on display. Plasser and Theurer were displaying their CompactFlex 4x4 tamper which has a
modular construction to reduce customer costs and its road rail InfraSpector for infrastructure inspection and surveying. There was also the opportunity to try its 3D training simulation tools that use VR glasses. It was also interesting to see inside the ROBEL ROMIS mobile track maintenance workshops which are used by Network Rail.
Loram unveiled its new compact RGX-02 rail grinder which was built at the company’s base in Derby. It is claimed to be the first ever UK-built railgrinder. It offers different consist configurations ranging from 20 to 40 stones.
Information about the McCulloch Group’s rail handling plant was available on its stand. The company was originally based in the remote Scottish coastal village of Ballantrae and now exports its plant to Mexico, Ireland, and New Zealand. On the UNIPART stand it was impossible to miss the Sleeper Change developed by Thomson Engineering Design which incorporates a digging blade to clear ballast between sleepers. Composite sleepers were also on display. Sicut sleepers repurpose millions of plastic bottles as they are manufactured from a blend of recycled plastics reinforced with glass fibre. Sekisui was displaying its FFU synthetic wood sleepers which were used to form a lattice track support for the Newark flat rail crossing.
Inside the ROBEL ROMIS workshop
Loram RGX-02 rail grinder
Pandrol launched its i+weld system at InnoTrans. This consists of seven devices to align rails, seal the mould, preheat the rail, weld rails, control cooling, detect defects, and capture weld data.
What caught my eye
With the huge variety of product at InnoTrans, there was much of unusual interest to see, some impressively large stands, and the opportunity to see a close up view of components that are normally out of sight.
The large 6.3 tonnes MTU series 1800 generator powerpack which provides diesel power for the Hitachi Class 800 series bi-mode units was one such item. Next to this stand, BEH2YDRO had its 100% hydrogen power internal combustion engines of up to 2,670kW.
Siemens probably deserves the award for the stand offering the most information as its large multi-level stand had information about 59 specific aspects of its business.
Almost certainly, the cheapest item of rolling stock on display was the Railscooter company’s model 25 battery powered
scooter which is used for inspection in remote, little-used railways in Sweden and Norway. It has a range of 55km and costs only €3,400.
For locations where there is a risk of animals crossing the railway, the Polich NEEL company has developed its UOZ animal protection system which transmits the sounds of various predators. These are 110cm high and are installed every 70 metres. Over 1,000 have been installed in Poland.
It was difficult to miss the threemetre wingspan of the Songbird inspection drone which has a typical flight time of 90 minutes and has flight planning software that offers beyond visual line of sight capability.
A novel form of rolling stock inspection on display in the AI lab was a robotic trolley which can run under trains where there are no pits manufactured by the Next Generation Robotics company.
One of the various control systems on display on the HIMA stand was a simulation of the Docklands traction power control and tunnel ventilation system which the company commissioned in 2021 and reported on in Rail Engineer 189 (Mar-Apr 2021).
(Above) The Siemens Mobility stand. (Inset) MTU series 1800 powerpack.
The Railscooter and the Songbird drone.
It was interesting to learn about the Climatic Wind Tunnel in Vienna which can accommodate trains up to 100 metres long and subject them to winds of up to 300km/h at temperatures between -45°C to 60°C and humidities between 10% and 98%.
Sad to see was the map of the trans-European transport routes on the European
Commission’s stand which showed the UK with no routes at all. Although Russia and Belarus were understandably absent from InnoTrans, two countries with 1520mm Russian gauge lines were present. Kazakhstan’s stand was promoting its rail industries which included wheelset production by Prommashkomplekt and RWS,
rail manufacturing by ARBZ and production of heavy duty switches and crossings by Prommash. Those manning the stand were in impressive national dress.
Ukraine was the other 1520mm gauge country present. It had 20 companies represented with 11 exhibiting at the National Pavilion of Ukraine, at which Ukrainian Railways or Ukrzaliznytsia (UZ) also had an exhibition. The goods being produced for export at a time of war included freight wagon and track components as well as those for passenger cars and electric trains.
The stand was also promoting rail freight to Europe and featured a display of station signs damaged during attacks. It also showed the grim war statistics of 707 UZ workers killed and 1,982 injured by Russian attacks. Since the beginning of the war, UZ has renovated almost 1,400km of railways, and rebuilt 48 bridges and more than 40 substations.
With some justification, InnoTrans is claimed to be the world’s largest rail marketplace. The above is a brief description of what the 2024 show offered. For anyone wishing to see the scale of the rail industry outside the UK, this is a must-see event.
The next InnoTrans is scheduled for 22-25 September 2026.
UK’s rail exclusion from Europe.
Ukraine – Your bravest partner.
What is RailwayPeople.com?
RailwayPeople.com is the largest dedicated rail job board in the UK.
How can it help me?
With the top career opportunities updated daily, your next move is a fingertip away.
What should I do?
Visit www.RailwayPeople.com to find your new career and become an essential part of the UK’s rail industry to help the nation build back better.
Innovation
in London and the South
The Railway Industry Association (RIA) is continuing its regional seminars to encourage innovation around the UK, holding its latest event in September covering the South of England and asking whether improved services might result from the introduction of new and imaginative thinking.
The venue for this event was the Ricardo Innovation Centre in Shoreham, just west of Brighton. The company has a history dating back to the early years of the 20th century and has a fascinating record of engine development, primarily for the automotive industry. Now housed in modern premises, its current work includes vehicle emission testing and improvement, the use of alternative fuels for internal combustion engines with a mix of methane and petrol to reduce carbon emissions, plus the development of hydrogen as a fuel with all the logistics that go along with that in terms of supply and storage. Some of the work will spill over into the rail sector, hence the opportunity for RIA members to see what is going on.
Setting the scene
Without doubt, the railways in the Southern area are busy, according to Ryan Anderson and Bryony Goldsmith from RIA. Seventy percent of all rail passenger journeys happen here, generating £5.4 billlion of revenue and 1.6 billion journeys each year. The population is growing and is expected to reach 10 million by 2030. Some 3,300 miles of track exist and important projects are in the offing, including: a western link to Heathrow airport; a Docklands Light Rail extension to Thamesmead; extending the Bakerloo line southwards from Elephant & Castle; resignalling at Hither Green and south from Victoria into South London; and station upgrades at Lewisham and Peckham Rye. In
the 2022/23 year, TfL spent £6.9 billion with just over 2,000 suppliers, of which around half were SMEs.
With the change in government, the appointment of Lord Hendy as the Transport Minister of State is seen as a positive step by Harry Shackleton from Inflect Partners. For the wider transport perspective, some changes have already been announced with the public ownership of TOCs and restoration of council run bus services. It is expected that a cheaper high speed rail line from Birmingham to Manchester will be considered, the HS2 extension to Euston is likely to happen, and the thrust to move more freight on to rail is important. The term ‘levelling up’ does not feature in the South and devolution of transport policy is unlikely except perhaps for the Solent region.
That said, the Department for Transport (DfT) is expecting budget cuts given the stated position with the national economy. Already, the Restoring your Railway initiative has been dropped so there will be some difficult choices to make in deciding investment priorities.
Transport in the South East
The South East has one of seven subnational transport bodies within the UK covering rail, road, ports, and airports. It was established in 2016 and Rupert Clubb is its chief officer. The aim is to produce a transport strategy up to 2050 which will take account of post pandemic changes, government policy, the impact of Brexit, and climate change. A public consultation document will be produced in December 2024 with a submission
CLIVE KESSELL
to government expected in October 2025. The document is expected to include financing options especially private funding opportunities, multi modal investment packages, and carbon reduction projects including removing bottlenecks on the A27 at Chichester, Arundel and Worthing, but all of these must align with national transport policies.
For rail priorities and connectivity, it is noted that the average speed of journey times is pitiful. Very few routes have end-to-end journeys of over 60mph, most only manage 59-50mph, many are as low as 49-40mph, and too many are under 40mph. (see image bottom left) Some routes are slower now than when electrified in the 1930s. The focus for investment will be:
» Improving reliability on radial routes.
» Enhancing east to west connections.
» Provisioning for ticket integration.
» Increasing freight on rail.
There are expected to be eight packages of rail interventions containing 79 schemes and £24 billion of expenditure. Very little seems to be happening at the moment on track upgrades, new lines / extensions, or new stations and upgrades. For freight, there will be a South East freight forum to study intermodal opportunities and the development of alternative fuels for freight transport including rail.
Network Rail challenges
With a train service of 5,500 passenger and freight movements daily on many of the ex-Southern Region lines, keeping the infrastructure in good order is both a necessity and challenge, so says Mark Killick, Network Rail’s director for engineering and asset management. The four national principles of Network Rail culture have to be honoured: everyone home safe every day; delighted train companies; a great place to work; and the railway to pay for itself. The local objectives are a timetable that gives 75% right time operation and a doubling of external investment. Capital works need to offer greater value and efficiency by a better understanding of the contractual models and a longer-term relationship with the supply chain.
To achieve this, a Southern Renewals Enterprise (SRE) has been created that comprises a Southern Integrated Delivery (SID) team that, in addition to Network Rail, includes the four partners Volker Fitzpatrick (buildings and civils), AtkinsRéalis (signalling), Volker Rail
(track), and Octavious (electrification and power). This is intended to bring an affordable and profitable projects structure that is cleaner and greener, maintains health and safety standards, and leaves a positive legacy for future generations of engineers. Ninety percent of capital spend is associated with renewals for which the Network Rail principles for faster project delivery to ensure the minimum of delay. Business development managers will be appointed to steer the projects throughout their lifespan. A ‘One Team’ thinking is the objective.
To date, major renewals have taken place at Crystal Palace involving a nine-day blockade, closing Barnes Bridge for repairs with a six day shutdown, repairing and waterproofing Blackheath tunnel during a 10 week blockade, and repairing the lift ropes on the Kingsferry Bridge across to the Isle of Sheppey.
One has to question the use of blockades as, while it enables the work to be carried out in a concentrated and efficient manner, the impact on the travelling public must not be overlooked. Bus substitution is invariably hated and is often poorly organised. A bad experience on one occasion can lead to people being put off rail travel into the future. Blockades have always been necessary, but it seems that nowadays nothing can be done without a blockade. Network Rail managers need to be mindful of the consequences of blockades and should always try to find ways of carrying out work without completely shutting down the train service.
The London perspective
UK growth needs London and London needs Transport for London (TfL), so says Theo Haughton, TfL’s head of operational innovation. It spent £6.5 billion in 2022/23 with 2,070 suppliers, of which 93% were UK and 50% were SMEs. The city calculates that £4 out of every £10 on national income comes from London. A £3 billion black hole emerged during post pandemic-emergency changes, but finances are now back to a breakeven situation.
There is a back log of asset investment and government funding is needed to progress capital projects. In rail the London Underground Central Line is under pressure, the Bakerloo Line trains are 50 years old, and the Croydon tram network is increasingly unreliable. Significant successes have been the opening of the Elizabeth Line and the extension of the Northern Line to Battersea where many new jobs have been created in the associated areas.
An average of £650 million per annum is needed for investment projects in support of rail transport. Innovation is always wanted to help spend this money in a more efficient manner and current challenges are: i) making the platform train gap safer and easier; ii) combatting tube railway dust; and iii) improving customer accessibility.
Blackheath Tunnel.
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Debating the issues
Having raised some of the challenges, it was then up to a panel of experts and the assembled gathering to discuss what might emerge from the supply chain in particular, and the industry in general, as to how new thinking might bring out new ideas.
The use of expertise within universities has been around for some time and Rod Anderson from Southampton (who had also spoken at the RIA London event in June) told of the work being carried out to make ballasted track more resilient, to examine how electrification costs might be reduced, and how to adapt for climate change especially extreme heat and rainfall. While a number of universities are collaborating in rail research projects, getting the outputs out into the real world is a challenge in itself.
On that same topic, Jon Salisbury, head of innovation at the Southern Renewals Enterprise, spoke of the difficulty of bringing in innovative ideas, particularly getting buy in from ground level staff. The utilisation of management and staff must be improved, with knowledge sharing being a weak area. Access to work sites is disruptive which leads to inefficient weekend working and the imposing of blockades. Remote monitoring of assets has been available as a technology for some time and can bring huge benefits but there remains a reluctance to use it.
Standards are important but are they fit for purpose? Electrification, which is universally seen as the way forward, needs to be made cheaper. While much of this relates to ways of working, the technical aspects must also be examined.
The often-stated requirement to digitise records and do away with paper once again got a mention, but this must be done in a way that is easily understood by those who have to use it and keep it
up to date. Modelling of projects and their intended output is considered very worthwhile, but the classic feedback loop of constantly trying it out to prove it works is essential.
When questioned about poor end-toend journey times on so many routes in the South, the responses had little to bring comfort. The combination of rolling stock performance, signalling / line capacity, and timetable construction seemed not to be aligned. The holy grail that ETCS will be the solution to bringing better journey times might well be the long-term future, but the current ETCS programme does not feature lines south of the Thames for decades to come. Can customers really wait that long for improvements, especially on routes where end-to-end journeys now take longer than a decade or so ago?
Powering regeneration
Mention has been made of the Northern Line extension to Battersea, where a combination of private finance and mayoral backing all contributed to a regeneration of the Wandsworth area. The regeneration of the rundown area
at Kings Cross, after the opening of the Channel Tunnel terminal, has yielded immense benefits. The extension of HS2 from Old Oak Common to Euston should surely be treated in the same way so said Alessandra Cosa, a principal consultant with Metro Dynamics.
Euston needs vision and drive for it to go forward. The finance required is £4.2 billion, but the benefits for jobs, homes, and land values would more than repay this. One can only hope that the new government will steer this towards a solution, not just to ensure HS2 has a proper London presence but for the good of the city in so many other ways. It is not just finding the money: revised planning processes will be all important. A portfolio approach is needed so that all interested parties can see what is on offer.
Outside of London, it becomes more challenging as there is no metropolitan regional authority to bring the necessary focus. It is also an area of the country where vocal opposition can be quite vociferous and, if not handled sensitively, large numbers of people get upset very quickly. Funding is however the crux of the dilemma and despite perceptions to the contrary, the South is not well placed compared to other parts of the country.
In summary
This session was quite different to the London RIA event in June, which Rail Engineer reported on. There, it was all about firms of many sizes having the opportunity to showcase their ideas and products. Many of the same companies were present at this more recent event but exposing the weak areas and challenges of the South were all designed to invite innovative ideas that might help solve some of the inherent problems. We shall have to wait and see what transpires.
RailStaff has been
As
»
»
»
»
We
IMechE
RAILWAY DIVISION CHAIR’S ADDRESS 2024
Iain Rae is the Railway Division (RD) chair for 2024/25. He started his traditional tour of RD Centres in Swindon in early September, a long way from his home in Scotland. He is the fifty-sixth chair and his theme is about diversity, inclusion and the skills gap in the industry, caused, among other things, by the pause in graduate recruitment during the first years of rail privatisation. Iain’s day job is strategy and sustainability director at Brodie Engineering, based in Kilmarnock. In this role he is developing the company’s business strategy, as well as leading Brodie’s new consulting business.
Like many RD chairs, Iain started as a BR sponsored student in 1989, completing a BEng in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (First Class Honours) at the University of Strathclyde, having 18 months of placements around all the engineering section and “meeting fantastic future colleagues”. During that time, he was given the task of fitting luggage racks to Class 156 DMUs which are still in place today. His first appointment in 1994 was as warranty and audit engineer at Haymarket depot, followed by his first big project managing the full refurbishment of Class 158 interiors (first and standard class accommodation as well as toilets).
“Initially I was disappointed not to do engineering,” he said, “but these projects gave me the foundations of project management – making things happen, deadlines are deadlines, fire safety, standards. And it’s all about the customer.”
Onward and upward
In 1997, Iain became Springburn Depot’s first professional engineer, as senior works design engineer covering accident damage repairs and failure investigation. He was part of a wheelset review team focusing on reducing risk to the railway arising from faults in wheelset overhaul.
He was later promoted to engineering manager, saying: “On top of my engineering role, I was given the task of developing the accident damage repair business for Springburn and Wolverton, including marketing, best practise, and welding standards”.
In 2005, he was promoted to general manager of the Springburn business (which, with Wolverton, was then owned by Alstom). He was accountable for everything that goes wrong, quality, safety, cash flow, and profit (or loss!). He said: “As a team, we turned the business from loss to profit, with a simple focus on doing things right first time”, adding that
MALCOLM DOBELL
Iain Rae at Swindon station before his first presentation.
Class 156 refurbished interior.
PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
working with and getting the best of people was his key learning.
In 2007, Iain joined Interfleet Technology first as principal consultant and then as operations development director for Scotland, leading and supporting many Scottish projects including the new sleeper introduction. Readers might remember that the introduction of the Hitachi Class 385 trains was delayed and a decision was made to draft in some redundant ex-Great Northern Class 365s in a hurry. Despite the new trains’ delay, the DMUs they were replacing were due to go to other operators, so the work had to be started from scratch and completed in 20 weeks.
Iain said he led that project “single handed, literally … as I broke my arm three days before the project started”. He used this as an opportunity to involve a young engineer as a sort of executive assistant, something that benefitted both the young engineer and Iain himself. “Now I take a younger engineer with me into all big projects”, said Iain, remarking on the mutual benefit. He was also client project manager for the Scottish hydrogen train which was demonstrated at COP26. It is a Class 314 converted to run on hydrogen with re-generated braking energy fed into the battery pack, and an on-site hydrogen generator or, as Iain put it: “Using yesterday’s wind to power today’s trains.”
Iain’s role at Brodie Engineering is to develop the medium/long term strategy
for the business with a focus on increasing turnover and business success through building partnerships and working collaboratively with customers; entering new markets in decarbonisation refurbishment, including HydroFLEX, Express Freight and class 769 bi-modes; and investigating reinstating Kilmarnock’s bogie and wheelset overhauls business, as well as the consultancy business previously mentioned. He now works for Gerry Hilferty who, many years ago was Iain’s first hire, reminding everyone that you should treat all people well as the day might come when they’re your boss!
Lessons learned
Iain has been active in the IMechE for many years, especially in the RD’s Scottish Centre before becoming a vice chair of the Institutions Railway Division Board.
Iain summarised lessons from his career to date:
» Volunteering is a great way to learn, and enjoyable.
» Use the IMechE’s Monitored Professional Development Scheme and work with your mentor to seize development opportunities.
» Remember that it’s all about the customer - or your customer.
» It’s all about the engineering too.
» When the time is right, stretch yourself, (does not necessarily need to be a new job).
» Process and procedures are great foundations but it’s people and teams that make
things happen.
» When teams have a common goal, so much more is possible.
» Remember to put back what you took out.
Chair’s objectives
Iain presented statistics from the National Skills Academy for Rail, and the IMechE, pointing to a number of strategic people factors affecting rail. First, the gender balance is poor. Men represent over 85% to 90% of the rail engineering sector, a little worse than general engineering although it is improving over time. Second, a bigger proportion of the workforce is in the last third of its working life than the first third. Third, at age 41-45 where the population would normally be at its peak, the proportion is slightly depressed, probably as a result of recruitment and graduate training policies in the first years after rail privatisation.
(Top left) Class 365 ‘happy train’ in Glasgow.
(Top right) Class 314 hydrogen train.
(Above) Iain Rae with the hydrogen train.
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: IAIN RAE
Ethnic diversity is quite low amongst older engineers, possibly reflecting the population mix at the time when people were choosing careers. Further, a RD survey analysis shows around 30% non-white British amongst the younger age groups although the result needs to be treated with caution as 40% - 50% did not declare their ethnicity.
Iain said that he would embrace objective three of the IMechE’s strategy to “build inclusive, thriving communities to support technicians and engineers to learn, work, and excel,” noting the NSAR’s comment that “filling rail workforce gaps has the potential to generate an additional £641 million for the UK economy”.
Needless to say, as leader of the RD, Iain can only discharge this objective through the membership. His presentation was a clear statement of intent with much audience participation illustrating, for example, how metal fatigue can easily break a metal rod (paper clips ultimate tensile strain of 1.1kN). He intends to champion the RD’s Annual Technical Tour (ATT) and Railway Challenge and, in his presentation, he invited young participants to speak about their experiences in those events. In Swindon it was Jack Evans and Jonathan Tomkins from GWR and members of Siemens’ Railway Challenge team. It was notable that the young engineers talked about their nervousness about being so close to so many ‘senior engineers’ at the ATT only to discover that they were a) friendly, b) equally prepared to learn, and c) equally prepared to ask what appeared to be obvious questions only to receive unexpected answers.
Superheroes
Iain celebrated the ‘superpowers’ that engineers possess: they can look at the shape of an axle end, for example, and see where there might be stress concentrations, or can read a complex pneumatic brake diagram, and then be able to explain these to lay people who might be affected by the engineer’s decisions. In the context of all this Iain was convinced, with perhaps slight exaggeration, that a good engineer has super strength and X-ray vision, can harness nature, and lead people whilst having fun on the way!
Jack Evans.
'Young members' group from the 2024 Technical Tour
Jonathan Tomkins.
As outlined above he sees that focusing on youth is the way to diversity of thought, more inclusion, and encouraging more women into a male-dominated world. Indeed, much of the discussion was about how this might be accomplished. He promoted getting involved in the Primary Engineer, Secondary Engineer, and other initiatives to encourage youngsters. He also described the IMechE’s involvement with the BBC Bitesize Schools Tour project.
Iain finished with the following challenges to the audience:
» Help develop our engineers.
» You are brilliant people –please shine.
» Be kind and look after yourself.
» If you’re in a position of influence, think about how you can help develop our future of rail engineering leaders.
» Younger engineers - keep developing.
» Ask to be at the table.
» Get involved with the IMechE.
Finally, Iain used a quote attributed to the late HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh: “Engineers are second only
to God. Everything He didn’t create has been invented by engineers”. But, Iain added, “don’t take this too literally!”
Brodie Engineering operates from two depots in Kilmarnock, Scotland and also provides a mobile service to the rail industry over the length and breadth of the UK and Ireland. It offers a wide range of refurbishment, maintenance, overhaul, engineering support, project management, and repair services to the UK rail and light rail sector. Its engineering team undertakes design and development work as well as reverse engineering for obsolete components/ systems and developing new equipment and materials.
RIA Conference
Supplying the railway with projects, equipment and services
The Railway Industry Association (RIA) annual conference is a big event at which the supply chain can hear from government, regulators, Network Rail, and train companies. Over 300 people were in attendance representing suppliers, from the big Tier 1 companies to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to hear what’s needed and how much finance will be available. Trade stands demonstrated some of the innovative work that is taking place.
Setting the scene
The new Labour government should be giving new confidence to the railway supply industry but companies are anxious to learn what the future holds, so says Darren Caplan, RIA’s chief executive. The HS2 cancellation triggered the worst level of confidence ever experienced. The future railway structure and organisation remains largely unknown. Companies continue to fear boom and bust with 83% predicting a hiatus of work. The rest of the world, which is seeing a 3.5% growth in rail investment, makes the UK position looks precarious.
The ‘difficult times ahead’ prediction has not helped confidence but there are hopeful signs: the TransPennine Route Upgrade, East West Rail, and HS2 extension to Euston are projects that will proceed. Passenger numbers have almost returned to pre-Covid levels and rail freight is also growing.
RIA listed five items it would like to see:
» A long-term strategy for rail.
» The industry reformed into Great British Railways (GBR).
» An acceleration of new train orders.
» Support for sustainable objectives.
» Leveraging of private investment.
PHOTO:
PHOTO:
Darren Caplan sets the scene
The Government position
Rail Minister Lord Peter Hendy was welcomed, knowing his in-depth expertise of the transport industry, rail in particular. His presentation stressed that the railway had to earn confidence and trust by fixing things, as current lateness and cancellations are unacceptable. Running a successful railway needs track, trains, and staff that are fit for purpose. Instead of blaming others there has to be collaboration. The unified system that becomes GBR should provide this and the Government will make it happen.
A procurement plan is essential to provide a steady workload for rolling stock suppliers. The Treasury is currently reviewing capital spend including all infrastructure projects. As well as the projects mentioned earlier, the digital signalling programme will see the Welwyn Hitchin section commissioned in 2025 after which its roll out should accelerate. Government wishes to give the supply chain the necessary confidence and is grateful for the work being done.
Business leaders fear that the railway will contract but the Government spending review in the spring should give more certainty. High on the list for reform is the ticketing system as simplification is essential. Improved WiFi on trains is crucial and innovative plans will include third party investment. Network Rail will be abolished in its present form with GBR having a route-based organisation once it is established. The railway needs effective business cases if the supply chain is to have a consistent order book but in turn, it must give reasonable prices and guarantee of delivery.
National infrastructure
The UK has many planned infrastructure projects, with rail being just one sector on the wish list, said Sir John Armitt who heads up the National Infrastructure Commission.
at the cancellation of HS2 Phase 2A though he welcomed the recent budget announcement that HS2 will be extended to Euston. However, the new station will be a time and cost challenge.
The government has stated an extra £35 billion will be made available for infrastructure projects. However, the current spending rate is only £25 billion annually, so it is questionable whether rail (and others) can spend the extra money.
A continuing problem for rail is that projects cost more than in comparable countries. High speed rail costs are high because Britain does not have enough practice at doing them so is on a constant learning curve. Successful projects need effective governance and competent clients. Determining the outcomes must take into account passenger needs and ticket prices. If the price is too high,
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Lord Peter Hendry
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
Fireside chat between John Armitt and conference host Natasha Kaplinsky
The government is to publish a 10-year infrastructure plan in April. This will include the need for planning reform as regulation must be seen as helping investment, not hindering it. Over this period, infrastructure investment is expected to be £40-50 billion from the private sector and £20-30 billion from public sources. Getting the prime minister and chancellor on side is vital if major projects are to proceed.
Projects must be better planned and costed before approval is given. Change of scope once the project is underway will only lead to cost escalation. Problems encountered must not be allowed to fester. SMEs are often better informed as to what is needed, compared to bigger companies.
A Network Rail perspective
Obtaining the best value for money amid tight fiscal constraints is the everyday challenge for Network Rail, so says Chief Executive Andrew Haines. The recent budget contained both good and uncertain news. The rise in national insurance payments will worsen the cost base by £250 million and investment money is lower than had been hoped for. However, it is a secure settlement and a solid programme of work can proceed. Spending in CP7 has already reached £800 million, higher than the same stage in CP6. The TransPennine Upgrade has spent £7 billion so far and a further £3 billion of contracts are about to be let. The HS2 extension to Euston is welcome news.
Network Rail’s relationship with the supply industry needs improved transparency, especially with the SMEs. This varies around the country and by engineering discipline. The next two months will sort out various procurement problems, with more focus on maintenance and renewals. Signalling needs a clearer steer given to established and prospective suppliers. Electrification cost control remains difficult. Money for research will be focussed on UKRRIN. Opportunities for mix and match funding from the private sector have to be explored.
As to the future, Network Rail will cease to exist as the organisation is too fragmented. GBR will provide a simplified structure but territorial thinking is an industry failing with parts of the country being too parochial. The relationship with the big Tier 1 suppliers needs to be more challenging.
As to daily operations, Clive Berrington, group director for rail business services, emphasised that passengers and tax payers should be better aware of the benefits obtained when money is spent. A spend of £11 billion per year, of which £9 billion goes to the supply chain, is a lot of money. Earthwork activities could be better communicated. Different models for delivery in CP7 will be used. Network Rail does try to help the supply industry, but it is not possible to prop it up all the time. A request for some low level work
to be offered only to the SMEs is not possible because of procurement rules. The lack of certainty as to when work is going to happen is a constant complaint.
Concern about the epidemic use of blockades was voiced. The trade-off between efficient project delivery and passenger disruption needs to be carefully considered so that Network Rail can keep to its slogan of ‘putting passengers first’. Network Rail owns the process of timetable compilation, vital work to connect people and businesses. Anit Chandarana, group director for
system operations, explained the difficulties of this task. Signalling is key to keeping trains moving, especially during periods of disruption. The management of the Network Rail-owned major stations is also a big responsibility with thousands of people congregating if the trains are disrupted. Bringing rolling stock and infrastructure together will help deliver a more consistent performance. Currently only 61.4% of trains run on time and 4% are cancelled. Recovering from trespass and suicide incidents has to be made easier.
Anit Chandarana
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
John Larkinson’s fireside chat
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
The role of the ORR
The Office of Road and Rail (ORR) is the government agency to ensure the railway (and road system) is safe and fit for purpose. John Larkinson, its CEO, said that improving rail efficiency is an important ORR objective and the supply chain must be part of that. There is encouragement to introduce new ways of working but these can be difficult to track and measure. Measuring the delivery promises made by Network Rail against actual achievements is difficult. Performance and safety will be constantly judged and weak spots will be declared. Recently, the Wales and West TOC performance was well below par but they have responded to the deficiencies.
Regional views
Just how devolved governments and regions can contribute to the debate on rail reform to ensure that there is integration of transport at a local level was questioned. London’s pioneering work with the Oyster card should be used as the model. The South Wales Metro is integrating local rail services with the future operation of tram trains and local bus networks. Similar things are envisaged for Manchester with its Bee ticketing system. The more spread out East Midlands network covering Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby presents a greater integration challenge. The regionalised ‘islands’ must also be capable of issuing ‘point to point’ tickets for journeys outside their area without passengers having to rebook enroute.
Concerns were raised on the process and cost of getting approvals. Companies spend a fortune in preparing all the required documentation. Safety approval for new electrification was particularly challenging. Prioritising asset condition is vital but the situation is not yet at the point where enforcement action is needed. The next two-three years will see changes, public ownership of all TOCs being the most significant. A question was asked as to whether the ORR will still be required; this remains to be seen.
Decision making from central government is often wrong and local devolution should ensure mistakes are avoided. An example is the compatibility between rolling stock and stations. GBR must have an organisation that ensures local accountability but local politicians must be prevented from micro managing railway operations.
All this is a major challenge and will need a strong voice in the general reform of the fares structure.
Project analysis 1: HS2
High Speed 2 is constantly in the news, mostly for the wrong reasons. The chair of HS2, Sir Jon Thompson, gave a frank update on what has happened and a pathway for the future. The political decision to cancel Phase 2A, which would have taken HS2 services to Crewe, will cause massive ongoing problems for the WCML. Although HS2 was not a fit-for-purpose company, Government needed to be a better client. No sale of land acquired for Phase 2A has yet happened and this might be fortuitous.
HS2 is a monster project where costs constantly escalated. It needed 8,276 consents to get the railway from Euston to Birmingham to accommodate objections from locals who do not benefit from the project. An example is the protection of Bechstein bats in Buckinghamshire which required a 1km long structure costing £100 million, with the local planning authority disagreeing to this until it was overruled. Sixty percent of the earthworks are completed with the opening expected to be in the 20292033 window. Options for Euston station are still being considered.
Nations and Regions panel
Jon Thomson’s fireside chat
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
Lessons learned for the future are:
» Don’t put new lines in tunnels unless absolutely unavoidable. This had been taken on board for Phase 2.
» Align the design to the European high speed standards, don’t invent new ones.
» Split the design from the build. The budget was set too early and was unrealistic. Get the design right, then contract to build it.
» Start the location of the project from where you want it to go. Treating Euston as an add on was a big mistake.
Quite how the line will proceed northwards from Handsacre remains uncertain and all eyes are watching as to what will finally be decided.
Project analysis 2: East West Rail
The proposed EWR line from Oxford to Cambridge is getting favourable press and making good progress according to David Hughes, the project’s CEO . Except for the Bletchley to Bedford section, the original line was closed in 1968. Since then, the line from Oxford to Bicester has reopened.
A new spur connecting it to the Birmingham to Marylebone line opened in 2016 to create a new route from London to Oxford. EWR is reopening the line from Bicester to Bletchley with a new station at Winslow. During a partial rebuild of the flyover at Bletchley, new platforms are cantilevered off this structure. This will provide an Oxford to Milton Keynes service in 2025.
The Bletchley to Bedford line provides a local service which EWR has already diverted into Bedford Midland station. The line has a recently modernised signalling system but East West services are not projected to reach Bedford until 2030. This is disappointing as this line is already an operational railway and connectivity between EWR and the Midland Main Line would offer significant benefit. Surely a way can be found to extend the service in a quicker timeframe? Disappointing also is not to progress the extension from Aylesbury to Calvert which should be another quick win.
Extending from Bedford to Cambridge requires a brand-new railway as the old formation was not safeguarded. The new route will cross the ECML at Tempsford to support new housing developments and will approach Cambridge from a southerly direction to serve the new Cambridge South station. The anticipated cost is £5-6 billion.
The project has Government and, more importantly, Treasury blessing since it will link two main science centres which attract investment into high tech industries. Although it will commence with diesel traction, discontinuous electrification is being proposed despite EWR providing a strategic rail freight route between Southampton and the West Coast Main Line. David advised that the new EWR line will offer two freight paths per day.
A view from the old guard
Lessons from the past should always be taken on board. These were offered in a live ‘Green Signals’ podcast from the conference in which Nigel Harris, former editor of RAIL magazine and Richard Bowker, former CEO of the Strategic Rail Authority, interviewed Chris Green who once led British Rail’s Network South East and Inter City sectors.
In this interview Chris Green’s key message was that if the railway wanted investment it had to earn the respect of politicians by improving performance.
EWR’s David Hughes
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
When Network South East was first formed, its services had a reputation for poor performance and tatty trains. Chris, who had transformed train services in Scotland, was given the remit ‘Do a Scotrail in London’. The result was the creation of six subsectors empowered to delegate downwards, 1,700 staff were recruited and/or retrained with full concentration for six months on improving performance. A net subsidy was essential but equally it was vital to keep within it. Too much control from the Treasury was an ever-present threat.
The introduction of the business sectors was a learning curve about commercial realities and led to the recruiting of experienced business managers.
For the future, Chris acknowledged that the Secretary of State appeared passionate about passengers and freight growth. His advice to her and Peter Hendy is that managers must have the necessary powers to achieve their set objectives. In turn, they must prove they can deliver before the
DfT will begin releasing control. GBR will need a high profile leader. The cost of the railway is today much greater than in British Rail days and to have any hope of getting back to the former situation, stopping cost escalation and attacking overheads has to be key. In short, the ‘new’ railway must restore the freedom to manage and, as costs are largely fixed, have revenue growth as its main objective
Fares and ticketing
A ‘fireside chat’ with a group representing rail retailers also emphasised that the current structure, with its numerous types of fares, has to be simplified. Getting the right ticket at the cheapest price into the passenger’s hand is the challenge. That said, fares reform will take time and might mean some ticket prices increasing. Passenger needs have not changed enormously but the means of obtaining a journey is far too complicated. This was not considered to be a technical problem but a solvable commercial challenge.
Chris Green (L) with Richard Bowker (R)
Green Signallers being interviewed by Natasha Kaplinsky
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Rail tickets can be obtained from many sources. Currently, TOCs are dominant but several independent retailers offer nationwide ticket agencies which give 95% of their revenue to the TOCs. It is not yet decided whether GBR will sell its own tickets but whatever happens, it must not stifle competition. Customers have a choice, passengers have no choice.
With the ever increasing use of online opportunities, making rail travel more attractive will be part of any new initiatives. However, there is a decreasing but still significant customer group who are not computer literate. Dependence on mobile phones is also risky. Mobility problems must be catered for and having rail staff on hand must not be forgotten. The proposal to shut most ticket offices was clumsily handled and caused an enormous backlash. Yet maintaining revenue is important as shown by the ScotRail experiment to abolish peak time fares which ceased due to lost income.
Promoting rail travel to future passengers must be considered. One suggestion was making public transport free to all under-18s which would cost less than OAP bus passes and would encourage youngsters to travel by train before passing their driving test.
Skills and resources
The country faces skill shortages, particularly in engineering. For rail this is a real problem as it is losing people at an increasing rate. Neil Robertson from the National Skills Academy for Rail, led a discussion with a group of experts in this field. Companies that poach people from other companies are not helpful. Retention is the big challenge, especially as everyone is fishing in the same pond. So how can this be reversed?
Apprenticeships are seen as the way forward covering Levels 3, 4, and 5. These will be preferred to university courses for the majority of youngsters. Engaging the ‘blue collar’ workforce is important as there are six of these to every one white collar. Targeting schools and establishing roots in the rail industry with enjoyable work experience should make for career minded railway people into the future. Once GBR is established, the scope of training on offer within the company should be much wider and could cover all engineering disciplines including rolling stock. Arrangements for periods of training in other companies on an exchange basis should be progressed. Effective mentoring would all be part of this.
Making infrastructure work more attractive to women remains a challenge as the work often involves shift patterns and nighttime operations. The LGBT+ diversity norms of today should provide suitable encouragement for all.
Previous policy and a summary
Many issues were covered in this conference with lots of questions tabled for what will happen in rail under the new Labour government. While the great and the good gave their opinions, there remains considerable uncertainty about future levels of investment and the continuity of work for the supply chain.
It was good to hear Huw Merriman, the Rail Minister in the previous government, state his disappointment about the HS2 situation. Not upsetting local MPs was a factor but the cost of the railway must not be increased by ecology factors. Politicians need to be braver in resisting ‘over green’ demands.
There remains a risk of ‘gold plating’ projects and a review of how the rail industry contracts out work is needed. Rolling stock orders to the principal four contractors needs a regularised pipeline.
Much will happen in the next year and one can only hope that GBR will become established with the predicted improvements coming to fruition for the industry in general and the supply chain in particular.
Skills panel discussion
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
An exhibitor spotlights
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
The conference provided a good networking opportunity
PHOTO: RAILWAY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
SIEMENS MOBILITY
We understand that collaboration across the rail industry is crucial for reducing cost and driving transformation.
