Rail Engineer - Issue 150 - April 2017 by Rail Media

Engineer

by rail engineers for rail engineers

{

Hitting

the

right

note:

APRIL 2017 - ISSUE 150

the Ordsall Chord

}

Tuesday 21 February 2017 - a bridge is born

ILKESTON STATION

NEW TRAINS

TANDEM TAMPING

How Galliford Try built a new station for Derbyshire County Council and Network Rail in just 10 months.

With 5,670 new vehicles already on order, how does the Long Term Rolling Stock Strategy see the future?

When tamping crossovers, working on both lines at once saves time and improves quality. Is it also a world first?

www.railengineer.uk

www.facebook.com/railsport

Alice vised o r p im t to ge u ch m s a e in c i t c pra e ss i b l o p as

k rt.u o ilspll a r w. or ca 6444 w w 1 0 8ut more 3 o 5 01 to find it Vis

LOUGHB O

ROUGH Epinal W UNIVERS ay, Loug ITY hboroug h, LE11 3 TU

new

THE RAILSPORT GAMES 2017 Join us for an action-packed, thrilling few days of competition and see if you have what it takes to take home a winnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s medal! Choose your sport from a vast range of disciplines: Badminton

Cricket

Darts

Hockey

Running

Triathlon (Sprint)

Singles, Doubles, Mixed Doubles

Sixes

Singles, Doubles, Mixed Doubles

5km, 10km, Half Marathon

Basketball

Sportive Short: 65km, Standard: 100km, Epic: 160km

500m Swim (Olympic Pool), 20km Bike Ride, 5km Run

3 on 3

Chess

Cycling

Football 5-a-side, 6-a-side (over 35s)

Netball Rounders Rugby Sevens

Table Tennis Tennis Singles, Doubles, Mixed Doubles

Rail Engineer • April 2017

DOO (Driver Only Operation) analysed and explained

Writers from Rail Engineer and RailStaff investigate the facts behind the headlines.

Contents Main line ATO evaluated 20 Clive Kessell reports on a joint IMechE and IRSE seminar which looked at the issues. Thameslink signalling update 26 David Bickell on the testing of ETCS with an ATO overlay on the Thameslink core. When the trains get longer, the hose won’t reach! 34 Grahame Taylor explains that longer trains need longer depots and longer stabling.

New trains in their thousands

RailBaar Rapid Charge Station 36 Peter Stanton examines methods for charging battery-operated trains at stations. ScotRail’s ‘new’ HSTs 40 40 years old but new to Scotland - how will their latest operator freshen them up? It’s time to tackle leaves on the line… 42 Malcolm Dobell explores plans to add wheel slide protection to Class 15X DMUs. Wheels keep turning 44 Cairn Cross works with Mechan and manufacturer Koltech to install a wheel lathe.

30 Tandem tamping

Chris Parker and Chris Tucker find that teamwork applies to more than just people.

Safeguarding maintenance depots 46 Train depots can be dangerous places without Zonegreen’s DPPS protection system.

Railway insurance takes specialist knowledge 47 Some commercial policies exclude railway activities. Jobson James has the answer. All change! 48 Rail Delivery Group chairman Chris Burchell delivered the George Bradshaw address. Unseen hazard! 50 Stuart Marsh looks at how the RAIB investigates an accident on a station platform.

Ilkeston - how to build a station in 10 months

The gate line throughput challenge The more people use trains, the more need to go through gate lines - quickly.

Impressive new rail grinders The first of Network Rail’s new Loram grinders shows what it can do.

How many railway technicians does it take to change a light bulb? Converting to Goodlight LED lamps means it’s not necessary so often.

Rail Exec goes to the Ironmongers 70 Change and innovation were the topics as the Rail Exec Club met at a new venue.

See more at www.railengineer.uk

We’re looking to highlight the latest projects and innovations in

Electrification/Power

Level Crossings

in the June issue of Rail Engineer. Got a fantastic innovation? Working on a great project? Call Nigel on 01530 816 445 NOW!

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Great news for passengers just not yet!

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

Engineering writers bob.wright@railengineer.uk chris.parker@railengineer.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.uk collin.carr@railengineer.uk david.bickell@railengineer.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.uk grahame.taylor@railengineer.uk malcolm.dobell@railengineer.uk melanie.oxley@railengineer.uk mark.phillips@railengineer.uk paul.darlington@railengineer.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.uk stuart.marsh@railengineer.uk

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Jolene Price

jolene@rail-media.com

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

www.railengineer.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

www.rail-media.com

Many of this month’s features concern schemes bringing great benefit to Britain’s rail travellers. By the start of 2018, the Ordsall Chord will be open and Thameslink's ATO and ETCS level 2 signalling will pass 24 trains per hour each way through central London. In 2020, around 5,500 new rail vehicles will comprise forty per cent of the UK passenger train fleet. Our article on these new trains explains how these large orders result from a government change in franchise philosophy. This is great news for commuters on crowded trains, especially for those in the North, with its generally short trains on long platforms. Here, these extra trains will almost double the number of seats in a couple of years’ time. Yet it takes time to deliver such investment so many may see this as jam tomorrow. An interesting question is whether this large number of new rail vehicles will have adequate provision for ETCS incab signalling to avoid the high cost of retro-fitment. This issue is highlighted in the industry’s just-published Long Term Rolling Stock Strategy. These new trains will be more efficient and reliable with lower maintenance costs and a much-improved passenger environment. They will, however, result in around two thousand surplus vehicles, many of which will be scrapped with years of operational life remaining. Does this show that the increasing rate of technical improvements is reducing the commercial life of rail vehicles? Not to be scrapped are the power cars and coaches from the Great Western HST fleet that are to be revamped to make up ScotRail’s new HST fleet which will soon be running to Inverness and Aberdeen. Grahame Taylor reports on how depots in Scotland are being altered to service these HSTs, new Caledonian sleepers and the soon-to-be introduced Hitachi Class 800 trains. Our other Traction and Rolling stock features include Malcolm Dobell’s article on the challenges of fitting wheel-slide protection to class 15x units. Peter Stanton also looks to the future, when battery powered trains will need rapid recharging at either end of their route using Rail Baar, a system now in use in China. Automatic Train Operation is also something for the future on the mainline mixed traffic railway, despite it being used on the Victoria Line for nearly forty years. Clive Kessell explains why main line ATO is more difficult than such a metro operation. Yet, as David Bickell explains, mainline ATO will be introduced to Thameslink later this year to enable it to pass 24 trains an hour in 2018. The Ordsall Chord is another project that will increase capacity. Mungo Stacey describes the choreography of two huge cranes positioning the 634 tonnes of steelwork that make up the arch of the project’s bridge over the River Irwell. Mungo also reports about a conference on the complex interaction between track and bridges. His article is essential reading for track and bridge designers concerned with this interface.

DAVID SHIRRES

Our station features this month are Nigel Wordsworth’s account of the speedy construction of Ilkeston’s new station, one from Clive on how Bluetooth can open station barriers and a cautionary tale by Stuart Marsh. His article summarises the RAIB report on the terrifying experience of a young girl whose wheelchair, with the brakes still locked on, was sucked into a passing freight train. Fortunately, she escaped without serious injury. Chris Parker has three features this month concerning grinding, formation flying and 4D vision. In one, he describes the complexity of Network Rail’s new C4400series rail grinder produced by American rail grinding specialists, Loram. Tandem tamping has been described as ‘formation flying’ - Chris describes the successful use of this innovative technique to tamp switches and crossings. Finally, he explains how ‘THINKlab’ gives possession planners 4D vision to ease their difficult task of anticipating all problems. In 1726, Daniel Defoe noted that the only things certain in life were death and taxes. To this he should have added change. Our report on the Rail Exec Club on 10 March describes how its three speakers highlighted the need for change and innovation. One was Professor Hansford, who described his review to find ways of encouraging third party investment and infrastructure delivery which he feels are essential if the rail industry is to grow as required. Rail Delivery Group chair Chris Burchell cautions that: “The railway has no right to exist in perpetuity, we must continue to justify our existence amidst this maelstrom of economic, technological and societal change.” Read our article ‘All Change’ to see why he considers that the railway is at a crucial turning point and must accept change or go backwards. Unfortunately, change is not being embraced on the Southern Railway, where the DOO dispute drags on having caused the line’s commuters untold misery. Our article explains the issues and shows why the RSSB and ORR consider DOO to be a safe method of operation if it is properly implemented. Nevertheless, many guards have genuine concerns about their status. Somehow, the industry must ensure that its workforce shares the vision of an advanced railway that can satisfy the needs of ever-increased numbers of passengers or, as Chris Burchell puts it: “I want us to build a new partnership with our people.” It’s just over a month to Railtex. As described in our show preview, by early March, 430 companies have taken stands and the programme of keynote speeches has been confirmed. We shall, of course, be there - do come to see us.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

More new names at Railtex

NEWS

Paul Plummer of the RDG to give keynote speech. By early March the number of companies taking stands at Railtex 2017 had increased to 430. Recent companies to add their names to the list of exhibitors reflect the diversity of products on show. They include Dublin-based Botany Weaving Mill, specialising in fabrics for transport applications, Milwaukee Composites, with lightweight phenolic composite flooring panels for rail vehicles, and Czech company AMiT, which supplies a number of train builders with on-board electronics and control systems Joining the show from infrastructure sector is TSP Projects, with expertise in railway operations and maintenance, electrification, signalling and telecommunications, civils, modular railway structures, level crossings and other aspects of railway engineering. Among other firms to recently reserve their stands are Lista (UK), showcasing workplace storage systems, and Selectequip, established supplier of PPE and work wear, tools, lighting and safety signage.

Meanwhile, details of the Seminar Theatre and Knowledge Hub programmes at the show are almost finalised. At the former venue, there will now be keynote speeches by Paul Plummer, chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group, and Professor Andrew McNaughton, technical director at HS2 Ltd. These are in addition to speeches by Rail Minister Paul Maynard MP and Dr Francis Paonessa of Network Rail. There will also be keynote speeches at the Knowledge Hub by Gordon Wakeford, chair of the Rail Supply Group and managing director of Siemens Mobility, David Waboso, managing director of Network Rail’s Digital Railway, and David Prout, director general, High Speed 2 Group at the Department for Transport. Visitors to Railtex will therefore have a great opportunity to hear high-profile speakers addressing topics that will shape the future of the industry. Also featured will be technical seminars moderated by Rail Engineer, discussion forums and project briefings. The sessions are open to all check programme details on the show website to plan ahead and get the most out of your visit.

The dates for Railtex are 9 to 11 May at the NEC in Birmingham. Advance registration via www.railtex.co.uk gives access to the exhibition over all three days, avoids payment of an entrance fee on site and enables you to join all the activities taking place during the event. Rail Engineer will be publishing a complete preview of Railtex 2017, the UK’s most important rail industry exhibition, in its May issue.

Heavy lift at Earls Court Earls Court was, until a couple of years ago, the traditional home for the Railtex exhibition. This year it is at Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre on 9-11 May, for the simple reason that Earls Court is being demolished. Housing and the Lost River Park will replace it. To remove the 61 portal beams that span the London Underground lines beneath, a heavy lifting crane from specialist contractor ALE has been brought in. Capable of lifting up to 4,000 tonnes, the crane is huge. It needs to be. The largest portal beam weighs 1,500 tonnes. The 61 lifts will take 61 nights, spread over six months, to complete. Each lift is dependent on the weather and London Underground access. PHOTO: EARLS COURT

Tel: 01968 671200 www.findlayirvine.com

THE STEPHENSON CONFERENCE: RESEARCH FOR RAILWAYS

25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;27 April 2017 London

Next April, The Stephenson Conference will bring together academic researchers and industry experts to shine a spotlight on the pioneering work taking place across the railway industry #stephensonconference

+44 (0)20 7973 1251

The pioneering Stephenson Conference returns to bring together international leaders of railway R&D to demonstrate how their work is being implemented with industry professionals.

ORGANISING COMMITTEE Railway Division The Institution of Mechanical Engineers

MEMBER CREDITS: Richard Gostling IMechE Railway Division Francis How Institution of Railway Signal Engineers Prof Simon Iwnicki Institute of Railway Research, University of Huddersfield

Sharon Odetunde RSSB David Polehill Association of Train Operating Companies

Visit: www.imeche.org/stephenson to find out more eventenquiries@imeche.org

NEWS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Shipping rails to Thurso Recently, 1,100 new rails, each 60 feet long, were shipped to far north of Scotland by - ship! The railway is one of its own best customers. Network Rail moves ballast around the network in big open-topped wagons, while steel rails also travel by train - which can be quite an interesting article when those rails are 108 metres long and have to bend to allow the trains to go around corners. But sometimes rail isn’t the best way to transport the heavy loads that the industry needs. RMS Laar sailed into Scrabster harbour on 27 February with the rails on

board, which will be used to renew 6.5 miles of the Far North line’s Thurso branch, from Thurso station to Georgemas Junction. Work started in March. Network Rail estimates that the nautical delivery by sea has saved 110 journeys by road and reduced carbon emissions by approximately 200 tonnes. Alex Sharkey, Network Rail area director for Scotland East, said: “As an industry we are determined to reduce the environmental impact of our activities. This is a wonderful example of how we can do that - taking traffic off the roads and substantially reducing the carbon foot-print of the project.”

Mechan goes French Mechan, the Sheffield-based manufacturer of depot equipment such as jacking systems, bogie drops and traversers, has been acquired by the French CIM Group. CIM’s products and services include the design and management of railway infrastructure supply and construction projects. The group operates in more than 90 countries worldwide in the fields of rail and public transport and mining and has an annual turnover in excess of €55 million. Mechan managing director Richard Carr (left) said: “This takeover will provide us with an excellent opportunity to accelerate our

international development. I will continue to lead Mechan’s expert team and as far as existing clients are concerned, it will be business as usual. However, we are looking forward to raising CIM’s profile in the UK and becoming part of an organisation that has demonstrated its dynamism through consistent growth.” CIM Group chief executive Alain Lovambac (right) added: “Mechan is a particularly innovative and successful company whose high-quality

products are complementary to our own. This acquisition strengthens our ambition to become a world leader in the design and supply of turnkey railway workshop solutions.”

NEWS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Fuel-cell train developments Alstom's iLint fuel-cell powered train, seen in public at InnoTrans last September (issue 145, November 2016) has now started its test programme at the company's Salzgitter plant. These tests will make sure that the drive train - fuel cell, traction motors, battery and brajkes - are all working in harmony before the train goes off to the Velim test track in the Czech Republic for testing at speeds of up to 140km/h. To support the current tests, a mobile filling station has been set up in Salzgitter to pump gaseous hydrogen into the train’s pressure tank. The hydrogen being used for the test runs is an industrial by-product of an industrial process, so a waste product which is being ‘recycled’. In the long term, Alstom aims to generate the hydrogen using wind energy. The new Coradia iLint will unertake its first passenger services runs on the Buxtehude-Bremervörde-Bremerhaven-Cuxhaven (Germany) route early in 2018. In a separate development, Fuel Cell Systems, working with the University of Birmingham and Hitachi Rail Europe, has completed a sixmonth study for the UK rail industry, which shows that hydrogen fuel cell technology can be successfully retro-fitted to extend the life of existing rolling stock. Funded by RSSB and Network Rail, the project demonstrated that the use of fuel cell technology could reduce journey times, eliminate emissions at the point of use and improve passenger comfort through smooth and rapid acceleration and minimal noise and vibration.

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

We are a Rail Specialist Insurance Broker (RISQS Link up approved)

Railway Trade Association

WE INSURE • RRV and Plant Companies • P-Way, S&T, S&C, SMTH, OLE and Civils contractors • Rolling Stock Turnkey Modifications companies • Manufacturers, Wholesalers and Installers of rail products • ROSCOs and TOCs supply chain • Rail Consultants, Surveyors and Engineering Companies WHY US? • Specialist Rail Knowledge • NEBOSH/Safety approach producing lower premiums • Contractual Liability checking • Better Technical advice • Specialist rail safety consultancy site audits funded by insurers

• The insurance had not kept pace with changes within the business over the years. • The insured activities did not match with what the association did anymore, increasing potential for refused claims due to non-disclosure. • A risk presentation was compiled, gaps closed in the cover and advice given in respect of Professional Indemnity claims. • Better cover was secured for their personal liabilities. • We are happy to receive enquiries from any railway related association or organisation. RISK OF MATERIAL FACT

NON-DISCLOSURE REMOVED

Contact Keven Parker on 07816 283949 / 0121 4528717 / 0207 9839039 Email: Keven.parker@jobson-james.co.uk

CONTRACTUAL

LIABILITY ADVICE

5-PAGE

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY

TO INSURERS SO ALL

PUBLIC LIABILITY

RISK REPORT

MATERIAL FACTS DISCLOSED

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY

DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY

CONSULTANTS TERMS AND

CONDITIONS REVISED

GAPS IN COVER CLOSED

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage. Jobson James Insurance Brokers Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority No. 516147

JobsonJames_Advert_01.12.2015_B_Amended.indd 6

15/12/2015 10:34

{

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Hitting

the

right

note:

}

Tuesday 21 February 2017 - a bridge is born

n a tandem lift using the UK’s largest crawler crane, contractor Skanska BAM, working for Network Rail, installed a pair of steel arches over the River Irwell to form the UK’s first network arch railway bridge. Set to become an instantly recognisable part of the Greater Manchester skyline, the bridge is the centrepiece of the Ordsall Chord. A key part of the Great North Rail Project, the Government’s £1 billion programme of rail improvements across the North of England, the Ordsall Chord will create a new rail link between Manchester’s main rail stations, Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria, and reduce the need for services to turn back to serve Manchester airport, unlocking vital capacity. It is scheduled to open to traffic in December 2017. Rail Minister Paul Maynard said: “These improvements are at the heart of our plans for the Northern Powerhouse. This is a demonstration of our commitment to deliver change that passengers want, such as increasing direct links between Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and other cities, providing more room and faster, more frequent services by 2020.”

the Ordsall Chord

MUNGO STACY

Ribbon development The new twin-track railway is only approximately 300 metres long. Yet, within this distance, it crosses the River Irwell, the city ring road at Trinity Way, the Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal, the pedestrianised Hampson Street Bridge and local roads - and it ties into two existing rail lines. This is also prime regeneration territory, with developments planned on the Manchester and Salford sides of the river.

The surrounding area abounds in historic interest, including the former terminus of the world’s first intercity railway between Liverpool and Manchester, now the Museum of Science and Industry. George Stephenson’s Grade I listed masonry arch bridge lies immediately downstream of the site. Clearly, a special bridge was needed for this special location. WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff worked with architect BDP to develop the

PHOTO: RUSSELL WYKES

concept design, which was taken to public inquiry in April and May 2014. The numerous site constraints naturally favoured different structural forms at different locations. However, it was essential to find a way to unify the appearance of the new link, respecting the surrounding heritage and the regeneration aspirations. This was achieved through the architectural concept of a ribbon in weathering steel. The ribbon theme links the half-through girders of the Trinity Way crossing, dipping through an emblematic swoosh to spring over the River Irwell in a single span of 89 metres. A network arch was suggested by the WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff engineers as a possible solution for the river crossing. Unlike more conventional bowstring arches, where the hangers are vertical, in a network arch the hangers are inclined and cross each other at least twice. The inclined hangers act to distribute concentrated loads from the deck to the top boom of the arch. The network arch therefore achieves the stiffness required to meet deformation criteria under rail traffic loading, yet retains a shallow span-to-rise ratio of 15.25 and an overall slim, elegant appearance. This allows for visual continuity to be achieved between the arch and the adjacent structures. Additionally, the architectural considerations have driven some of the more complex aspects of the bridge engineering. The top chord has a hexagonal profile to reduce the visual bulk of the section. The arch girder is asymmetric and tapers from 2.5 metres deep at the north end, adjacent to Trinity Way, to a slender 0.7 metres deep at the south end beside Stephenson’s bridge. The arches are inclined at six degrees from the vertical to enhance the appearance.

PHOTO: RUSSELL WYKES

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Construction engineering With the Transport and Works Act Order granted in March 2015, design and planning proceeded in earnest. AECOM Mott MacDonald was appointed by Skanska BAM to undertake the detailed design. Equally important, and critical to the success of the project which was carried out under an alliance arrangement, the steel fabricator Severfield was appointed at an early stage. The construction sequence was agreed and refined with input from all these parties. In particular, it was decided to erect the bridge in a piecemeal fashion, rather than slide the completed structure into place. The chosen approach required less temporary works in the river and hence gave considerable programme advantages.

The flat sections of the deck were assembled on four temporary supports, with their positions chosen to maintain a pair of seven-metre wide navigable channels in the river. The supports had a dual use, and previously also served to dismantle the former Hampson Street bridge. This truss bridge had to be removed to make space for the new arch. The temporary steel columns were installed through holes made in the Hampson Street bridge deck. The sections of the arches were brought to the compound on the east bank of the river. In a prime example of safety by design, the site welding occurred at ground level with the arches assembled flat. The arches were then rotated to the vertical, pivoting on a 300mm diameter steel pin at each end. Careful setting out allowed the second arch to be swung up in the correct position relative to the first, both at six degrees to the vertical. The permanent K-bracing, to restrain the top chord against buckling, was bolted into place using high strength friction grip bolts.

Big lift The assembled arch steelwork weighed 634 tonnes, out of a total bridge tonnage of 1303 tonnes. To lift this out over the river, heavy craneage was required. At the north end, this was no less than the largest crawler crane available in the UK - a Liebherr LR 11350, with a capacity of 1350 tonnes, provided by Weldex. By contrast, the crane at the south end was a LR 1750 with a ‘mere’ 750 tonne capacity. The cranes were booked a year in advance. Even more impressive was the fact that the cranes moved during the process. Having picked up the arches, the cranes tracked forward in tandem, moving approximately 30 metres. Several pauses were made while 580 tones of

Rail Engineer • April 2017 Pride of Manchester

PHOTO: RUSSELL WYKES

counterweight was added to stabilise the large crane, and 350 tonnes for the smaller crane. The crane pad comprised a 500mm deep reinforced concrete slab, and a six-metre distance adjacent to the river wall was piled with 600mm diameter CFA piles. The arches had to be landed on, and connected to, the node units which were already installed on the deck. These formed the starting sections of the arch box girders. Detailed surveys had been made of the node steelwork, and the ends of the arch sections had been ground to match the survey. Due to the location of the lifting points close to the quarter points of the arch, the ends of the arch were expected to deflect inwards by approximately 125mm during the lift. The sequence required that the north end of the arch was landed first and a temporary bolted connection made pending the permanent welds. The southern end was then relaxed into place, with final adjustment controlled by steel strands connecting the bottoms of the arches.

staff in the AECOM Mott MacDonald offices and the geometric BIM model was produced by the fabricator’s modellers working alongside the design engineers. Equally important for the final design were Network Rail’s requirements for maintenance and robustness. The bridge is designed to permit a pair of hangers to be removed to allow for replacement, without restriction on rail traffic loading. A worst-case accidental damage scenario has also been considered, involving the potential loss of four pairs of hangers in series. The weathering steel finish, as well as providing the architectural theme, means that no maintenance painting is required for the arch steelwork over the railway, therefore minimising whole life cost. Where possible, open sections were used in preference to closed box sections, in order to allow for touching distance inspection of all platework faces. The arch top chord had to remain as a box section to achieve the slender dimensions envisaged at the public inquiry stage. However, the architectural detailing as a hexagonal section provided considerable benefit in stiffening it. The angled joint between plates acts similar to a longitudinal stiffener but simplifies the fabrication details within the box section.

The next stage will be installing and stressing the 46 hangers on each side with access from MEWPs running on the deck steelwork. The hangers, ranging from M85 to M100 solid steel bars, will be stressed from the centre outwards and this initial stressing stage will lift the bridge clear of the temporary river supports. Further stressing stages will follow after casting the reinforced concrete deck. Load cells in each hanger will allow live monitoring of stresses. Brian Duguid, engineering manager for AECOM Mott MacDonald, said: “This is a complex, interdependent structure. Similar to a ‘cat’s cradle’, as you adjust the stress in one hanger, it affects the stress in all the other hangers.” The inextricable relationship between the design of the structure and the construction sequence was reflected in the close working relationship between the designer and fabricator. Indeed, Severfield embedded a number of its

PHOTO: RUSSELL WYKES

Hangers

Following the successful lift, Severfield project manager Jarrod Hulme said: “After months of detailed design planning workshops, we successfully completed the tandem lift of the network arches onto the bridge deck, over the River Irwell. I am extremely proud of everyone involved in reaching this milestone. Over the last few weeks the Severfield team has been working incredibly hard to get everything in place for today’s tandem lift and we are delighted with today’s achievement on this fabulous project.” Programme manager Allan Parker from Network Rail agreed: “I have been working on this project from the very beginning and I am extremely proud of every milestone we have achieved. However, the sight of the arches elevated over the River Irwell was very special and will live long in my memory.” Peter Jenkins, BDP transport architect director and project lead architect, recalled the early days of the project: “I still have my original sketch of the bridge concept from when BDP started work on this exciting and challenging project over five years ago. It is therefore hugely satisfying to reach the dramatic moment of the bridge arches being lifted into place over the river.” Brian Duguid of AECOM Mott MacDonald was also happy and relieved: “We have worked on major structures around the world, but this has been as demanding a project as any we have worked on.” These quotes illustrate the universal expression of those involved: pride in this project. It is civil engineering at its finest, an exemplar of alliancing, collaboration, complex technical analysis, BIM techniques and of sheer hard work. But, more than that, this bridge is set to become an urban icon and symbol of the transport-led economic development of the whole northern region. Mungo Stacy is technical director at WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff

LONDON BRIDGE, CHRISTMAS 2016

ROADRAILCRANES.COM T 01978 852254 E INFO@ROADRAILCRANES.COM

Rail Engineer • April 2017

DOO operation

only

Driver

COLLABORATIVE REPORT BY WRITERS OF RAIL ENGINEER & RAILSTAFF

analysed and explained

he term DOO (Driver Only Operation) has created mayhem in railway circles recently, with much publicised industrial action taking place that has caused misery to thousands of rail travellers. Widespread comment has appeared in the national and local press, rail magazines, radio and TV programmes and indeed questions have been bandied about in parliament.

Some definitions It’s all about automation and, in all variants, power doors are a prerequisite. But what are the actual operational methods that are often described as DOO? »» ATO = Automatic Train Operation. The train, upon getting a ‘Go’ command, will drive itself to the next scheduled stopping place within the safety control of the signalling system. Normally, an ATO train will have a driver remaining in the front cab, the sole member of staff on board, who will close the doors and initiate the ‘start’ button. »» DOO = Driver Only Operation (the only true use of the acronym). The driver is in sole charge of the train and is responsible for train movement control as well as door operation.

DTO on the Docklands Light Railway.

PHOTO: MATT BUCK

As is commonplace these days, playing the ‘safety card’ has an emotional appeal that could well sway the public to a particular point of view, regardless of the true situation. So-called ‘expert’ opinions have been put forward that might even result in changes to the law on when and how strikes can take place. It would be good if, before pronouncing solutions, some of this ‘informed’ opinion understood what the real issues are. Unfortunately, DOO as an acronym is commonly used as a ‘catch all’ for a number of ways by which trains can be operated in a more efficient manner. None of these preclude a second person being on board for customer care purposes.

London Underground’s Victoria line is a good example of ATO operation.

»» DTO = Driverless Train Operation. The train has no dedicated driver but retains an onboard attendant to look after passenger interests as well as door closure activation that initiates a train start command for ATO to take over. In the event of equipment failure, the attendant has the facility to move the train at slow speed to a safe stopping point. »» UTO = Unattended Train Operation. The train has no on-board staff and train movement, as well as door opening and closing, is entirely automatic, controlled by a timed sequence. Examples of this can be found at airports for shuttle transits that take travellers between

Rail Engineer • April 2017

terminals, but it also exists on a number of Metro lines around the world. Paris Metro lines 1 and 14 operate on this basis. »» DCO = Driver Controlled Operation. This is a new term, invented during the current UK disputes, that has the driver controlling train movements and door operation, and the conductor looking after passenger interests. In the event of a conductor not being available for whatever reason, the train can still run in DOO mode rather than being cancelled. Other than DCO, none of these are new. ATO is common place on metros and dates from the original London Underground Victoria Line in 1969. More recently ATO has been introduced on the Central, Jubilee and Northern Lines as well as a more modern version on the Victoria Line. DOO was negotiated in the 1980s and first introduced on the Bedford - St Pancras route in 1982. It has been extended to other inner suburban routes around London and Glasgow and is now used on London Overground and Thameslink. On London Underground, DOO (known as OPO - One Person Operation) was introduced on the Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines in 1984 and was subsequently extended to all other lines by 2000 as a precursor to ATO on the lines referred to above. DTO has existed on the Docklands Light Railway since its opening. UTO has been in operation on the Lille VAL system since 1983, on the Vancouver Skytrain since 1985 and on Paris Metro Line 14 (a new build line) in 1999 with Metro Line 1 being converted later. An agreement is in place between Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) and the UNITE union to introduce UTO on the Glasgow Subway from 2021. London Overground operates under DOO conditions.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Paris Metro Line 1 now operates under UTO.

It should also be remembered that the growing number of tram and light rail networks in places such as Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Birmingham, Croydon and Edinburgh plus the Tyne and Wear Metro are all operated in DOO mode.

Defining operational and safety requirements All of these methods of operation needed to be carefully thought through before introduction to ensure a safe method of working. The basic requirements have been defined and are well known. »» ATO. As well as the automatic driving commands to the traction and braking systems, an ATP (Automatic Train Protection) system is required that ensures the train operates to the limits set by the signalling system. Nowadays, this is known as a movement authority. ATO permits the number of trains per hour to be maximised but it is usual for a manual driving option to be retained so as to maintain driver familiarisation and to move the train to a safe stopping place if the ATO system malfunctions. »» DOO. For the driver to be in sole charge of the train, the system must have: 1. A secure radio link between driver and control centre; 2. A public address system for the driver to speak to passengers; 3. Radio that can be connected to the PA system in the event of the driver being incapacitated; 4. A means by which the driver can observe all the train doors to ensure safe closure before starting away; 5. The normal drivers DSD device (dead man’s handle in old speak) and continuous train movement detection at the control centre by either track circuits or axle counters. »» DTO. All of the above ATO features with the addition of the attendant having an emergency control panel to drive the train at slow speed to the next station where passengers can disembark. »» UTO. All of the ATO and DOO requirements plus a continuous CCTV link from every carriage to the control centre to show and record all passenger movement including activation of a passenger emergency button that will stop the train if pushed. Two-way communication to the control room between passenger and controller will be part of the emergency button housing. Platform screen doors will be a mandatory requirement in the UK. »» DCO. Same rules as for DOO but with the conductor having access to the train PA system.

Some of these are more challenging than others. The radio communication system was developed as CSR (Cab Secure Radio) and is now replaced by GSM-R. Train PA systems are normal practice. Well-developed ATO and ATP packages are readily available from a number of suppliers, principally for metro and mass transit systems, and both features are now part of the ERTMS/ETCS specification. Continuous CCTV coverage can be difficult because of the bandwidth required for good quality pictures and the means of transmitting these back from the train to the control room. However, it is the way by which the driver observes all the doors that is the emotive issue.

The platform-train interface This interface is recognised as having significant safety implications. Sometimes, this is described as safety critical, which can be an unfortunate term as people use it in several contexts to wrongly define system design and staff competence. Despite the billions of people that board or alight from trains every year, the general public can, on occasions, do stupid things that result in incidents occurring. The risks and the means of minimising these are considered later on. When DOO was introduced in the 1980s, various means were devised to enable the driver to observe the train doors. For short trains on a straight platform, dropping the cab window and looking back along the train was deemed acceptable. In similar circumstances nowadays, a platform-mounted mirror can be used, which would be slightly convex, heated and angled to minimise the impact of rain and snow from distorting the view.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Neither of these options were satisfactory for longer trains or for curved platforms, so platform-mounted cameras, with associated banks of TV monitors sited on poles at the train stopping points, have become commonplace. Great care has to be taken to ensure that both cameras and monitors are correctly positioned to minimise the impact of any vandalism and to ensure that the pictures are of sufficient quality in all lighting conditions. The equipment must always be maintained to a high standard to ensure viewing angles and picture quality are not compromised. A variation to this arrangement is to link the cameras to a low-powered wireless transmission system and provide in-cab monitors for the driver to view. This has the advantage that the platform pictures remain viewable even when the train is moving off. London Underground employs this system on most lines, as do a number of metro and suburban lines in other countries. Recognising that platform-mounted kit can be cumbersome and expensive, newly built rolling stock for lines where DOO is envisaged comes equipped with side-mounted train cameras linked to monitors in the cab. The viewing is therefore self-contained and is not dependent on station works for DOO to be inaugurated.

Door design and platform operation Getting someone trapped in a door with the train moving off is the biggest risk. In the days of slamdoor trains, this was always a guard’s responsibility in conjunction with platform staff where stations were staffed. Power doors have eliminated much of the risk but incidents still happen. The public often regards train doors as being similar to those on a lift where, by sticking a hand or bag into a closing door, it will automatically re-open. Only on the most modern metro trains that have sensitive door edges will this happen - normally it will be dependent on the driver re-opening the doors. If the intrusion is very thin, there is a small risk that the door closure system will not detect this. There have been occasions

when a thin wrist or the straps of a bag have been on the ‘wrong side’ with a person being dragged along once the train begins to move. Door detection systems are improving all the time, thus reducing the risk. One example, the development of ‘intelligent sensitive edge’ door seals by London Underground, was reported in issue 132 (October 2015). The painting of ‘sharks teeth’ on door edges is being trialled to further warn the public of potential danger. Another factor is the distances of the door sill from the platform edge and the step-up distance from the platform to the train floor. On a mixed traffic railway, both these potential hazards will exist as the platform position has to cater for all types of passenger and freight trains

Rail Engineer • April 2017

that pass through the station. Some of these gaps can be significant if the platform is curved, in which case middle or end doors can be a considerable distance away dependent on whether the curve is convex or concave. Track cant angles can tilt the train away from the platform. Not only is this gap a trip hazard, it is possible for passengers to fall between the train and platform, with potentially fatal risks. Often, ‘Mind the Gap’ announcements give warning if the step distance is unusually high or wide. On metros and urban railways where the stock is all the same type, the current design is for the doors to be exactly at platform level as this enables easy access for people in wheelchairs, although it can cause the horizontal gap to be greater on curved platforms. London Underground users will have observed the level access on the new S Stock for the Metropolitan, District, Circle and Hammersmith & City lines. More recently, a design has emerged with a sliding step that closes the gap between train and platform when the doors are open. The new Merseyrail trains will have this facility, as well as red, amber and green door illumination to indicate the door status and when they are about to close. So who is best equipped to monitor all of this? The Union view that it is the guard needs challenging. The guard often has to alight from the train to view the platform, which on a long train will be a considerable distance. If the platform is curved or it is a foggy day, seeing the whole train length will not always be possible. Some train operators insist that the guard alights on to the platform first to check the correct positioning of the train before releasing the doors, all of which increases the station dwell time. Additionally, before the train can start, the guard has to re-enter the train and close their door before traction power can be applied, therefore becoming blind to any untoward happening during this period. The driver on the other hand has a continuous view of the entire train on either platform-mounted TV monitors or TV screens in the cab. These pictures remain until the train begins to move and can be programmed to stay on in cab screens until the train is clear of the station. As always in such situations, familiarity can be an enemy and guard or driver can fail to notice someone not clear of the doors. At busy stations, where crowds may remain on the platform for the following train, the situation is eased by having platform staff who watch the alighting and entering process. They are typically equipped with white ‘right away bats’ that are held up for the driver to see when it is safe to leave. The latest ones are capable of being illuminated red or white, the white light giving the driver the necessary assurance. At very busy stations, there may be a second member of staff at the train stopping point to relay the ‘right away’ signal. Some stations have a RA (Right Away) indicator positioned by the platform starting signal that are operated by platform staff once it is safe for the train to move.

Tickets, fare collection, evasion and customer care Checking tickets and collecting fares is nowadays as much a part of train crew responsibility as it is of station staff. Whilst large terminal and interchange stations still have ticket offices, at less-important stations the office may only be open in peak hours and at rural locations the station is often totally unstaffed. Automatic ticket machines are available at many places but these may only cater for local travel on that line.

Many stations now have ticket barriers but need staff in attendance for travellers who have no ticket or the wrong ticket. Often this leads to the barriers being left open if there are no staff on duty. There is an ever-growing reliance on train crew to check and sell tickets on the train, but this is a task that needs minimum interruption. Conversely, it is not unusual for door release to be delayed due to the guard finishing a ticket transaction. The situation is further complicated with the growing advent of ‘print at home’ paper tickets and electronic tickets on a smartphone. A recent journey on the line from Macclesfield to Manchester by local Northern trains was witnessed. Only Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester have ticket offices and machines, the local stations in between being unmanned. It was late afternoon with passengers going to Manchester for an evening out. At each local station, a handful of travellers boarded the train. The guard shut the doors and then began checking and selling tickets. With both credit card and cash sales, this can be a slow process. A transaction would typically not be completed before arrival at the next local station, with the guard having to divert for the door release and closure routine. It was obvious by the time the train arrived at Manchester that a number of passengers had not been served and would have either had to go to the excess fare window or, if the barriers were open, enjoy a free ride. This situation is typical across suburban lines around the country. The introduction of DCO would both improve fare collection and reduce train delays in such circumstances. TOCs must surely be aware of the problem, but it is a balancing act as to how many staff to deploy against the likely revenue received. With a guard freed of door duties to concentrate on revenue collection, not only will the door opening/closure process be speeded up, the behaviour of the general public will surely improve and the temptation to evade payment reduce. DOO in its many forms has to be part of this progression. There is considerable evidence that the travelling public like the reassurance of a person on the train to look after their interests. Antisocial behaviour, especially late at night, can be very disconcerting and a passenger taken ill needs someone on board to take charge of the situation and summon help. TOCs have a duty of customer care but some seem to approach this more diligently than others.

Looking forward There is no doubt that DOO in whatever form is here to stay. It has been in existence for nearly 50 years in conjunction with ATO, and 30 years in true DOO form. The safety record is good. Both the ORR and RSSB have studied the operation in depth and produced public statements that DOO in its various forms is safe and can yield safety benefits. DOO is technology dependent, so it would be quite reasonable for the unions to press for continuing high maintenance standards on the equipment involved. Equally, management and unions need to agree a sensible way forward on the use of on-board staff to maximise assistance to the travelling public with ticket queries, train running information and general customer care. This would be a win-win scenario for all parties.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Warm Dry Safe Comfortable The new high performance Pro Rail GORE-TEX® Collection Manufactured by Orbit International utilising GORE-TEX® Fabrics

Yukon 2 – 2-layer lined coverall

Colorado 2 – 2-layer bomber jacket

Please visit orbit-int.co.uk for product details

Pro Rail utilising

for

At Aquarius Railroad Technologies we believe in ma everyday railway maintenance tasks simpler & safe

Telephone: 0113 262 4444 Web: www.cml.uk.com

Reducing the teams’ fatigue and risk of slips, trips and falls, the Aquarius R2R 4x4 and LTE makes the Plymouth Signalling & Telecoms work easier, safer and more productive.

Achieving Engineering Success through Collaboration

CML delivers efficient, value-driven engineering solutions for the rail industry. Safety and innovation are at the core of

collaborative relationships, built on an open

everything we do, together with a

and honest partnering philosophy and a

‘can-do’ attitude and personal attention to

dedication to high quality delivery.

client needs. We pride ourselves on our Structures

Transporting 3.5 tonnes from Road to Rail to Site with the R2R 4x4 & R2R Plant Tr See details at www.railrover.com Roads

Earthworks

Specialist Services

Buildings

Marine

Aquarius Railroad Technolo Providing quality Road2Rail vehicles - Available for hire

To hire call 01765 635021 or email abi.broa Offices in Leeds, Dinnington, York and Colchester

e n i L n d i e a t a u M l a v O Rail Engineer • April 2017

CLIVE KESSELL

utomatic Train Operation has been a practical system for Metros for many years. Beginning with the Victoria line in London in 1969, ATO has become a normal means of operation for mass transit networks in most major cities. The technology has advanced down the years and more modern systems tend now to go under the acronym CBTC (Computer Based Train Control) which include many more features, often with provision for moving block. ATO yields much greater train throughput and enables significant capacity gains on the same infrastructure. Yet, with capacity challenges dominating main line and suburban rail services, expansion of the ATO concept to main line rail operation has barely begun. Is it really that difficult? A joint seminar by the IMechE and IRSE was held recently in London to look at the issues.

The value of ATO The seminar produced a whole range of speakers, from both infrastructure and rolling stock disciplines, with experience in the UK, Europe and across the world. It soon became evident that the requirements for main line ATO had a common theme, with everyone listing the same basic principles. To get an efficient, practical and cost-effective ATO in place, the following elements would be needed: »» A proven ATP (Automatic Train Protection) system which would normally be ETCS Level 2; »» A bolt-on ATO package for automatic driving within the constraints of the protection system; »» A Traffic Management System (TMS) to analyse and regulate train movements for the most effective throughput; »» A C-DAS (Connected Driver Advisory System), interfaced with the ATO system, such that trains are driven at the optimum speed for timetable compliance and energy usage; »» The underpinning of all these by robust telecommunications, data and radio networks. All these technologies currently exist, so why has industry not made greater efforts to bring them together into a single unified application?

As would be expected, there are many other factors that make this seemingly easy solution much more difficult.

The European Standards dimension The EU has been slow to realise the need but, in February 2016, main line ATO was added to the Command and Control System (CCS) TSI and a MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed at InnoTrans for ATO to be included in the ERTMS documentation. Wouter Malfait from the ERA (European Rail Agency) set out the objectives for ATO adoption. These are to increase capacity, safety, performance efficiency, punctuality and passenger comfort while, at the same time, decrease costs, energy consumption and rail noise pollution. The vision is to have an open market where an independent on-board ATO interfaces with an independent ETCS train package. Train protection would be provided by the ATP, with safe driving entrusted to the ATO. In SIL terms this equates to SIL 4 and SIL 2 respectively. Future challenges will be: the possibility of adopting ETCS Level 3, braking curve determination, the underpinning telecom network(s), GSM-R replacement and satellite tracking. Existing investments have to be protected and mandatory upgrades will need to be avoided unless absolutely essential. Five work packages have been identified covering standardising the trackside information from TMS; a functional spec for the ETCS on

Rail Engineer â&#x20AC;˘ April 2017

board interfaces; determining human factors, release speed, audible and visual warnings; interfaces between ATO and ETCS for freight operation; and ATO requirements for driverless and unattended train operation. Wherever possible, these will be aligned with ShiftÂ˛Rail work streams. Nothing will happen quickly, the non-safety related functions are to be set out by 2019 and there is no stated time for the rest.

International considerations Several speakers informed delegates on what is happening internationally. David Dimmer from Thales in Canada told of the work to develop an ATO package for urban and main line use within the NGTC (Next Generation Train Control) project under the EU 7th Framework Programme. The analysis has compared CBTC and ETCS, where 49 per cent of functionality is similar but only one per cent at system level. Eight work packages including moving block, IP-based radio, satellite positioning and message structure are underway. Train and platform door operation and train positioning will be quite different for main line ATO as compared to metro due to dis-similar operating conditions - metro trains typically stop every two minutes whereas main line stops are much more spread out. The coupling and uncoupling of trains also has to be considered. BenoĂŽt Bienfait, the Intercity/ATO manager at Alstom, described the work to categorise the benefits of ATO. Current timetables allow for 90 per cent of trains to arrive early at stations. With ATO, the integration of infrastructure and PHOTO: ALSTOM

Grades of Automation.

timetable data will allow an optimum speed profile with guaranteed arrival and departure times. Energy savings of up to 12 per cent can be achieved compared to manual driving. Studies on different driver behaviour show a 15 per cent variance in energy consumption for inter-city trains and 40 per cent for local trains.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

In Belgium, a need exists to increase the 92tph (trains per hour) through the six-track north - south junctions in Brussels where one free slot for every four trains is required to maintain stability. Studies show that ATO will help, but crucial will be the effective integration of data from lineside infrastructure, safe speeds under ETCS supervision including protection against movement authority overrides, accuracy of train position, plus TMS information on route, stopping pattern and arrival/departure times. Ray Clifton from Siemens Rail Automation told of the company’s development plans for ATO on metro, main line passenger and freight requirements. The table (below) demonstrates the similarities and differences, and the step change in approach that will be needed both technically and operationally. The Thameslink application (see later paragraph) will be watched closely in Europe as to how well ETCS and ATO can be integrated. The driver’s ETCS display might change in an ATO railway and communications channels both for data dissemination and radio links will need much greater capacity. Some serious thinking on the holistic approach to ATO will be necessary according to Dr Xialou Rao from Systransis, as ATO cannot resolve traffic conflicts. How to evaluate the optimisation of capacity and the different optimisation intentions is a problem. Mass Transit / Metro Captive Stock Simple Layouts and Boundaries Passenger Only Proprietary System Single Supplier (for individual line)

PHOTO: SYSTRANSIS

Conflict resolution: Train speed optimisation (As applied in the Lötschberg Base Tunnel, Switzerland, by developing a DAS system to support traffic management). A Decision Support System with data from TMS, DAS and the intensity of traction and braking forces will be needed to produce an optimised train control trajectory. Its realisation will be dependent on constant bi-directional communications between TMS and the on board ATO equipment.

The British perspective The capacity crunch caused by a doubling of passenger numbers since 1996 and continuing growth is well known. All this brings a demand for greater reliability and reduction in delay, so says Andrew Simmons from the Network Rail Digital Railway group. Solutions vary from ‘do nothing with reliance on road transport’ to conventional enhancements such as longer trains, the use of digital technology to enhance performance, major infrastructure work to widen existing routes, and building new lines. Main Line Mixed Traffic Railway Complex Infrastructure Level Crossings Different Train Types Different Line Expectations

Digital technology has already increased capacity on motorways by 20 per cent, on London Underground by 20 per cent and in air traffic control by 60 per cent. Applying similar technology to main line rail is a ‘no brainer’ and ATO has to be part of this. Analysis work has been underway since 2007 but, in 2016, ATO was recognised as a game changer. Critical features such as timetable changes and optimising ETCS constraints are being modelled, with ATO seen as a closed-loop control system that will reduce the allowances built into train scheduling, allow closer running of trains and fine tune the regulations for train movements at conflict locations. The specifications for command and control elements, infrastructure changes and rolling stock traction and braking requirements will be issued by mid 2017.

Thameslink central core When the upgraded Thameslink opens in 2018, the throughput for the central London core will rise from 16 to 24tph in each direction with the flat junction at Blackfriars being critical. This is a train every 2.5 minutes and a headway of 150 secs. Jonathan Hayes, Network

Rail Engineer • April 2017

WS1 CS Desk

Signalling Control Desk TM

WESTCAD Client

ETCS / TSR Manager

ARS Client

External Outputs

External Inputs Plan/Replan

Westcad GSM-R Network

Feed to DAS

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

ATR (for ATO) Object Controllers Westlock

ARS ++

RBC

FTN Network Backbone

Rail’s engineering manager for integration, verification and validation on Thameslink, explained the elements required to achieve this. Block sections of 70 metres length, balises for stopping accuracy of ± 0.5 metres at stations with dwell times commensurate with 1,800 passengers per train, a revised ETCS protection curve, development of an ATR (Automatic Train Regulation) package plus TMS and C-DAS information are all needed. Only ATO can deliver the required train performance. The signalling system being supplied by Siemens that includes the interlocking, ETCS and ATO is in the advanced testing stage. Modelled initially in a system integration laboratory, real testing has taken place on the ETCS National Integration Facility (ENIF) Hertford loop site and is now underway on the central core section during possession hours. Results are encouraging, but proof of repeatability and tests to validate the testing methodology are part of the process. The mass of data means that every test hour generates 4.6 hours of analysis. Thameslink is a main line railway that requires metro like performance. A detailed update of the Thameslink scheme follows this article.

The London Underground experience By pioneering ATO on metros, LU is probably more knowledgeable in ATO operation than any other organisation. Graham Neil, the head of rolling stock, described many other factors that need to be considered for an ATO project. LU now has four lines equipped for ATO: »» Victoria line now re-equipped with a ‘distance

Simplified Thameslink architecture. to go’ radio system working on fixed block principles with a 34tph capability; »» Central line, equipped since 1997 with a 1992 design of ATO. Overground sections had to overcome problems of adhesion, staff access, trespassing and fencing; »» Jubilee and Northern lines using the Thales loop-based ‘Seltrac’ system as a full CBTC application including moving block. Low adhesion is a big problem and can lead to non-communicating trains with resort to manual driving. LU retains a ‘train operator’ in the front cab for door control and train start command. Manual driving needs to happen on a periodic basis so as to retain familiarity. ATO brings great benefits but its limitation is that it cannot predict what might happen, so safe alternative arrangements need to be in place. In tunnel sections, where emergencies such as driver incapacitation, passenger alarm activation, a train fire and traction supply loss can occur, the system should always try and stop trains at a station and not in the tunnel. Low adhesion during variable weather and climatic conditions (leaf fall) is the biggest problem for ATO systems, and LU is to appoint an adhesion controller when conditions demand it who will have knowledge of the high risk areas and instruct the train operators accordingly. The new S Stock on the Metropolitan, District, Hammersmith & City and Circle lines will be fitted with sanding equipment to improve traction and braking. Data logging of all ATO commands and subsequent train performance is vital.

Rolling stock factors Clearly, fitting trains with ATO equipment is crucial, but just how difficult will this be? The ROSCO view, as expressed by Euan Smith from Angel Trains, outlined some of the factors that would have to be overcome. Different train compatibility, interworking between fleets, the need for a single type of coupler, and standards that would ensure everyone used the same protocols, will all be necessary. To achieve this, a systems authority might be required to plan the introduction programme. Trains typically have a life of 35 years, with four major upgrades in that time, and keeping the ATO technology current would need to fit with this cycle. Jack Ratcliffe from Bombardier gave detail on train fitment challenges. Essential to effective ATO application would be: »» An accurate, installed train position reference system, be it bogie or body mounted; »» Speed sensing from axle sensors with a secondary back up system; »» Diverse speed indication by doppler radar, optical speed sensor or accelerometer; »» At least one speed probe on an unpowered axle; »» Integration with doors and the train management system; »» 5-15 per cent tolerance of the demanded braking and traction rate; »» Control of regenerative and rheostatic brakes with no overshoot or undershoot; »» Fast reaction braking time plus blend out of speed and open loop braking; »» Efficient wheel slide protection and sanding; »» Load weight compensation for traction power with a slip limit of 5-10 per cent.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

As a system, train testing will need to be both static and dynamic to prove auto driving, station stopping, position accuracy, door control and full integration with the infrastructure data including TMS. The communications link to the train is vital, including messaging to passengers. Other factors will include keeping the railway clear of intruders, track-worker safety, vegetation control, management of the platform-train interface and the control of train despatch. Transition to non-ATO areas without speed reduction has to be considered, with interfaces to ETCS, TPWS and AWS needing to be developed.

Freight interests A plea from DB Cargo, the biggest freight operator in Europe, was made by Miroslav Obrenovic. With automation rapidly being adopted by the road sector - hands-free lorries are now being tested - something similar is needed for rail freight to cater for longer and heavier trains, noise and emission reduction plus energy and CO2 savings. Digitisation is the first step with intelligent locomotives and wagons, all of which are being condition monitored and predictively maintained. Dispatching, fleet control and maintenance is well established. Automating hump shunting will begin within 12 months with real time management for coupling and train formation. Migration to automatic right away on a green signal will begin trials in 2019 with already 800 locos equipped. Obstacle detection over a 400-metre distance with high precision stopping is already modelled. The freight companies see automatic train operation as the future, whether this is integrated into other ATO systems or developed as an accessory to traditional signalling systems. Either way, it’s needed now!

Certifying the system

Simplified on-boardsystem. The UK certification regime is mature with wellestablished protocols. There is a will to succeed but the skillsets need to be clear.

Summary Did this seminar achieve its objectives? In broad terms, the answer is yes. It explored the benefits to be had by adopting ATO and the basic building blocks needed to establish ATO in operational terms, and it also exposed many of the challenges for both infrastructure and rolling stock that need to be taken into account. People will be better aware as to what is involved if a railway decides to progress an ATO scheme. There are other issues which were barely touched on. First of these is industrial relations, since ATO will be a step change in how a railway is operated and this inevitably will have a big impact on the employed staff, not just drivers but other train crew and back-room controllers who have responsibility for dealing with emergency situations. The UK is only too well aware how difficult it can be to change working practices. Another issue is the challenge of gluing together all the ATO components from a disparate supply base. The goal of having open standards is fine, but when collecting together the suppliers of ETCS (four main ones), ATO packages (maybe the same four but not necessarily the same one on a particular contract), TMS (at least four) and C-DAS (at least three) and you get a permutation of around 200 options.

Some elements - ETCS and maybe ATO - will already conform to interoperability standards but others - TMS and C-DAS - are proprietary systems with little commonality. The Thameslink project is manageable because it is small scale with limited supplier engagement where the necessary interfaces can be tightly controlled and tested. ATO deployment will only make sense where capacity requirements are greatest, so perhaps the Thameslink model might be the sensible way forward as it restricts the amount of supplier competition into manageable combinations. One questioner asked if ATO will drive trains in an optimised way. Evidence seems to exist that a skilled human driver can better the ATO performance. It was acknowledged that, in a minority of cases, this might be true. However, the consistency that ATO brings will give the greater benefit because all trains will behave in the same way, thus decision-making on regulation becomes much more certain. Another question asked: “Where is the Directing Mind?” This was not properly answered but the specifications for both infrastructure and rolling stock are in preparation by the Digital Railway team. It is logical, therefore, that this group will lead the consensus of all parties and thus fulfil the role. Well done the IMechE and IRSE for staging the event. At very least it has focussed minds and probably achieved much more than that.

VISION SHIFT2RAIL IP5 Shaping the future through European Innovation Programme 5 within Shift2Rail. PHOTO: DB CARGO

Like all new systems, main line ATO will need to go through an authorisation process before it can be used for public service. Richard Feasby from the National Certification Body (NCB) described what would be needed. A fundamental element will be proving the inherent safety and the safety efficiency of the system. A 12-stage process is likely which must be independent of the suppliers. Underpinning it will be the Common Safety Method, ROGS and the Interoperability Regulations and each will need to be considered for the infrastructure, the rolling stock and the system as an entirety. Due consideration will be taken of existing specifications and associated risk assessment and hazard analysis, also lessons from the metro and urban ATO applications and any cross acceptance of technology from other countries. Some new ATO specs for main line acceptance will have to be written.

PHOTO: BOMBARDIER

From our test bed to your track bed Cement for track bed replacement has to be ultrarapid hardening to meet return to service deadlines. The challenge comes when your works are taking place 10m underground and 100m along an underground network tunnel. Pozamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development labs can create a bespoke formulation of our successful PQX cement thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workable enough to be pumped from street level. Yet still achieve a strength of 40N in just 8 hours. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just one of the many problems our development teams have solved for clients and contractors in the rail industry. To see how we can help you, visit pozament.co.uk or call 03444 630 046

Rail Engineer • April 2017

DAVID BICKELL

Thameslink signalling update

he complex Thameslink capacity upgrade programme includes the very visible civil engineering works in the London Bridge area and the introduction of Class 700 trains through the central London ‘core’ using European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2. In-cab signalling is required to allow trains to be driven automatically between Kentish Town, Blackfriars, and London Bridge or Elephant & Castle, under driver supervision, in order to enable up to 24 trains to operate per hour from 2018. Testament to the integrated and collaborative approach taken by Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), Siemens and Network Rail, another milestone was achieved last summer with a successful trial of a Class 700 train through the core using ETCS. This project is the showcase for Network Rail’s upcoming digital railway revolution.

86 trains an hour! A fundamental pre-requisite of ERTMS Level 2 is a fixed-block system with signal interlocking. The core was resignalled with four-aspect signalling as part of the Thameslink Programme Key Output 1, described in issue 109 (November 2013). The relay-based Westpac and Solid State interlockings (SSI), associated with the outmoded 1970s London Bridge Area Signalling Centre, are being progressively replaced with Siemens Trackguard Westlock computerbased interlockings controlled from Siemens Controlguide Westcad workstations at Three Bridges Rail Operating Centre (ROC). The terminal platforms at London Bridge and south central lines were completed during the Christmas 2014 blockade and described in issue 125 (March 2015). Since then, further work has taken place with the ROC now controlling all lines

from Charing Cross and Cannon Street through London Bridge, with the London Bridge panel presently remaining in control of the south eastern lines to the east of the station. As the various stages of infrastructure upgrades are completed, the signaller interface and interlockings are updated by means of data changes. The tracks and signalling across the new Borough viaduct for segregated Charing Cross services was commissioned in January 2016, whilst the new Bermondsey dive-under came in to service this January (issue 148, February 2017).

With the south central phase of London Bridge resignalling, the then-new Westlock interlocking communicates with SSI Track Function Modules (TFMs) conventionally using two base-band data links and three with Long Distance Terminals (LDTs). The five data links are separately interfaced with Westlock via a Trackside Interface (TIF), which acts as a protocol converter between the Westlock network communications and SSI data links. The latest phase, however, deploys the innovative new Siemens zone controller system. The controllers provide an input/output module (IOM) interface between the Westlock interlocking and the trackside infrastructure. Commenting on the development, Mark Ferrer, Siemens’ operations director digital railway, said: “Although, at first glance, it may seem a little unusual to introduce a completely new system on such a high profile, much-scrutinised

Rail Engineer • April 2017

ECML K MML WH

CANAL TUNNELS

KINGS CROSS

ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL KINGS CROSS THAMESLINK (CLOSED) FARRINGDON

CITY THAMESLINK

(IN BOX)

BLACKFRIARS

project, the performance requirements of the London Bridge area were such that traditional technology would have been too slow in operation. Network Rail’s specification for the programme demanded that the performance of the interface had to support a peak flow of 86 trains per hour (tph) through London Bridge.” The zone controller developed by the team is an internet protocol (IP) network-based solution, rather than one that operates over a baseband datalink as TFMs would. As fast as a relay solution, the new controller also has a significantly smaller footprint than an equivalent TFM and provides greatly improved diagnostic capability, making any future maintenance requirements simpler, faster and more efficient. This system also overcomes the limitation of a single SSI data link that can communicate with a maximum 64 trackside modules.

increased capacity available under ETCS, additional intermediate track circuit block sections have been created, permitting trains running under ETCS to close up to the next block marker (see diagram).

Lessons from the Cambrian EDS The ERTMS Early Deployment Scheme (EDS), introduced in 2011 on the Cambrian lines in Wales, was the pilot project for Level 2 deployment to other parts of the UK network. The experience gained and lessons learned have provided a valuable input to the development and delivery of the Thameslink ERTMS installation. Significant issues identified with regard to testing the EDS system including insufficient focus on simulating, testing and integrating the system off the operational railway, limited access to the infrastructure to test the system, and integrating the sub-

ETCS intermediate block sections.

CANNON STREET

CHARING CROSS

CONNECTIONS BEING REMODELLED

ELEPHANT & CASTLE

SEVENOAKS/SUTTON/ WIMBLEDON VS

More capacity

NEW BOROUGH MARKET VIADUCT

(SEGREGATED ROUTE FOR CHRNG X TRAINS)

LONDON BRIDGE

ECTS/ATO K KINGS CROSS PSB WH WEST HAMPSTEAD TL THREE BRIDGES ROC VS VICTORIA ASC

(LOCATED AT CLAPHAM JNC)

EAST CROYDON/ BRIGHTON/KENT

To meet the specification of 24tph through the Thameslink core section, it is necessary to deploy Automatic Train Operation (ATO). This will provide a peak theoretical capacity of 30tph, thereby creating a reliable 24tph service with acceptable recovery margins. An ATO system needs to know when and where the signalling system requires the train to stop (end of movement authority) and therefore needs a suitable signalling interface. Given that the adjoining Midland main line and East Coast main line routes will eventually be provided with the ETCS as part of Network Rail’s national rollout of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), ETCS was the obvious choice. However, the existing lineside signals will be retained for the foreseeable future, facilitating the running of non-ETCS trains through the core while also providing a back-up for ETCS-fitted trains should the ETCS fail. To take advantage of the

systems. The impact of these issues led to on site modification and re-testing with limited access to infrastructure, thereby delaying delivery and adding significantly to costs. Accordingly, lessons from the EDS led Network Rail to develop a four-stage strategy to manage the Thameslink project risks.

Verification and validation Firstly, verification of the proposed system specification was undertaken using a computer simulation with a proven model of the ETCS core functions. The next phase saw the creation of Network Rail’s Systems Integration Laboratory at the Southwark HQ of the project team. This has a complete endto-end system with at least one sample of each component, using real equipment in an off-line test environment. These are complemented by simulators, to model the rail environment and drive the relevant system inputs.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Systems Integration Laboratory.

The comprehensive test set up includes real on-board ETCS and ATO equipment, including associated peripherals such as balise reader, odometry, AWS and TPWS. The trackside equipment features real interlockings running the actual data to be used on the Thameslink route, a Radio Block Centre (RBC) and a dummy balise driven by a telegramme simulator. These two subsystems are linked together using GSM-R base stations and repeaters linked back to Network Rail’s off-line GSM-R reference facility. The laboratory has the capability to operate one real train and up to 59 simulated trains, to reflect that the real RBC is designed to deal with 60 ETCS connected trains in the core. The programme also made use of Network Rail’s ETCS National Integration Facility (ENIF) at Hitchin, where an 8km section of the Hertford Loop was available as a test track during offpeak periods. ENIF was configured with three virtual stations, Farringdon, City Thameslink and Blackfriars with block markers and signals. Although the Class 313 test train was not equipped with ATO, it was possible to observe the shore-based messages that were sent. The philosophy was to test the infrastructure against the Class 313, which was the main baseline. Further compatibility testing was undertaken with a Class 700. The testing process allows the system, and operational rules to be tweaked as necessary. The ENIF tests concluded in July of last year. Prior to the delivery of the Class 700s to England, Siemens tested the on board ETCS equipment on the Wildenrath test track in Germany.

The final stage of testing has been undertaken at night on the Thameslink core between Blackfriars and St Pancras using both the Class 313 and a Class 700. Functional and operational tests will continue through 2017. ETCS/ATO is planned to be brought into service in the core at the beginning of January 2018 between Kentish Town and Elephant & Castle, with a temporary transition in/out of ETCS on the chord from Blackfriars to London Bridge. The Christmas 2017 blockade sees a final major resignalling phase of London Bridge and it was decided not to cram in commissioning of ETCS/ATO through London Bridge at the same time as the extensive interlocking data changes. This final section of ETCS/ATO is therefore programmed to go live some time in 2018 to give breathing space, ensuring stability of the interlocking data, and time to test the ETCS/ATO for this section.

Automatic Train Operation ATO is primarily an on-board system specified by Siemens as part of its Class 700 train development. Network Rail is providing the infrastructure to support ATO. A shore-based system called Automatic Train Regulation (ATR) holds the geographic route map of the core and the base timetable and, for each train, automatically updates both dwell time and run time to next station. ATR optimises these parameters to keep the service to time, whilst the signaller may make manual adjustments if necessary. Communication is via public mobile or Wi-Fi, interfaced at the shore using COM@RL. The system has the capability to pass updated journey information to the driver on the move at any time. Additionally, ATR may pass a revised braking rate to the ATO in the event of low adhesion. ENIF Control Centre.

Rail Engineer • April 2017 ATO calculates a braking curve but also sees the protection curve that ETCS is calculating so that ATO will ensure the driving always remains within the supervision curve, even if it thinks it can achieve better braking than ETCS. If the ETCS fails in service, the ATO will drop out. No communication with the RBC for 30 seconds will result in the train being stopped. In the event that ATO is not available for any reason, the train may be driven manually in Level 2. If ETCS is not available, the fall back is operation with AWS/TPWS. The AWS sunflower is depicted in the planning area of the Driver-Machine Interface (DMI). When operating in ETCS Level 2, the AWS and TPWS systems are suppressed. The Class 700 is also designed to operate with AWS/ TPWS as a standalone system if ETCS fails.

Operation of ATO Every time a train does a start of mission, the driver will key in the train description, for example 1E36, and the ATO will talk to the shore-based server to obtain updated timetable information including dwell and run times for the route. When a train enters the ETCS area, it first makes contact with the RBC. This contacts the ATR system which then knows that it has an ETCS-connected train with ATO ready. ATR can then send updated information to the train. Once the train transitions into Level 2, ATO is offered to the driver (ATO light starts flashing). If the driver chooses to run in ATO the traction/brake controller is put into neutral and the ATO button pressed. From that moment it’s hands-off. On arrival at a station, as soon as the train is detected at the correct stopping position, the doors open automatically. A significant difference with ATO driving the train is that it will still be doing 25-30 mph half way down the platform, a change to what passengers have been used to but already standard practice on London Underground routes with ATO such as the Jubilee and Northern lines. Incidentally, London Underground has experienced some corrugation of the rails where trains are all accelerating at the same point and that’s being looked at by the project. ATO will minimise variability of driving through the core. As dwell time will be critical, ATO counts down to the point the driver needs to start the door closing sequence. So, for a 45 second dwell, the driver has a nominal 22 seconds to do the check and close the doors whence the ATO button will start flashing again. Pressing the button will re-engage ATO, provided the driver is satisfied it is safe to depart and movement authority is indicated on the DMI.

The train reports to the ATR when it stops and departs a station. If it departs late, the ATO will try and make up time by cutting out coasting, adopting a more aggressive approach to the next station within the safety curves, reducing the next station dwell time. Dwell times will be set according to the differing needs of the individual stations. The critical part for Thameslink is the occupation of the flat junction at Blackfriars, where the service splits between the routes via London Bridge or Elephant & Castle. Leaving Blackfriars in ATO, the driver can take back control of the train once clear of that junction. The ATO border is one signal section before the ETCS boundary finishes on the approach to Elephant & Castle. If the driver does nothing, the train will come to rest at the signal prior to the transition point of ETCS boundary so the train can never leave the ETCS area in ATO. On the London Bridge route the changeover takes place on the east side of the station.

Coping with varying adhesion Operational rules are being developed to deal with low adhesion events. An example is on a Monday morning after an engineering possession when the rails may be rusty. It may be appropriate for the first train to be driven manually and do a couple of controlled stops before running ATO. ATO has seven brake settings, and various tests of poor adhesion have been carried out under simulated adhesion conditions to determine settings for stopping accuracy. The core is divided into sections. This allows, say, a lower rate of braking at the start of ATO to the first station, then re-adjusting on a station-to-station basis. Class 700s have the advantage of tread brakes, which have a self-cleaning effect.

Maintenance and faulting S&T technicians are used to having fault diagnostics facilities for computer-based interlockings and SSI data links. However, with ETCS/ATO, the fail-safe signalling system effectively extends beyond the signal box and track equipment through the airwaves via the GSM-R into the train, interfacing with the onboard ETCS European Vital Computer (EVC) and DMI in the driving cab. In the event of an incident, the technician at Three Bridges ROC will have access to the interlocking data and the RBC data and GSM-R message data to see if movement authority aligns with the interlocking data, plus other information such as balises passed over. ATR messages are fed through the RBC and logged. On the train, events are logged by the accident resistant ‘black box’ called a Juridical Recording Unit. A tricky issue for the maintainer is to ensure that, when balises are replaced (perhaps after relaying or re-sleepering the track), they are put back in the correct position. There are approximately 450 balises in the core, used primarily for ETCS odometry re-calibration but also in stations to finely control ATO stopping position. For a stopping point balise, an installation tolerance of 1.5 metres is required but the maintenance tolerance will be much tighter. Siting forms are used to record positions of balises with datum plates used as the infrastructure reference points. Maintenance Delivery Unit staff have been receiving training in testing and fault finding from Siemens technical specialists using the kit within the Integration Laboratory. Thanks to Jon Hayes and Paul Booth of Network Rail for their help with the preparation of this article.

New trains Rail Engineer â&#x20AC;˘ April 2017

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

in their thousands

DAVID SHIRRES

Great Western Railway Class 800 Bi-mode.

ver ÂŁ10 billion is being invested in the current orders for 5,670 new rail vehicles. Some of these are already in service with almost all due to be by 2020. This equates to the delivery of 25 vehicles a week, compared with the four vehicles a week supplied over the previous control period. This unprecedented new trains bonanza is primarily due to two factors. The first is the concurrent requirements to replace old trains on East Coast and Great Western main lines, including the forty-year old High Speed Trains (HSTs), and procure large numbers of trains for the soon-to-be completed Thameslink and Crossrail projects. Given the significance of these large train orders, which total 2,600 vehicles, their procurement was be managed by the Department for Transport (DfT) and, for Crossrail, Transport for London (TfL).

New thinking

Crossrail Class 345.

The second factor is a change in franchise philosophy. Until a few years ago, franchise competitions did not adequately consider service quality.

The ScotRail franchise, awarded in 2014, broke this trend with bidders being ranked in a process that gave a 35 per cent weighting to quality and a 65 per cent weighting to price. It also required the franchise holder to procure its own rolling stock to a defined customer specification. Since then, the DfT has followed this Scottish example. The recent franchises awarded or extended in accordance with this new thinking have how signed contracts for a total of 2,270 vehicles as follows: Caledonian Sleeper (75), First Trans Pennine Express (221), Greater Anglia (1043), Great Western Railways (416), Northern Rail (281) and ScotRail (234). The government and new franchiseled train procurement has introduced new funding sources. As a result, the

three original rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs), Angel Trains, Eversholt Rail and Porterbrook, are only funding 32 per cent of these new orders whereas, as of March 2016, they owned 92 per cent of the UK rail fleet. Many of these new trains will be built in Britain, with over half the orders placed with Bombardier and Hitachi. Stadler make their first entry into the UK mainline train market with an order from Greater Anglia for 378 FLIRT units.

More seats, but not yet All this is good news for passengers, although most will need to wait a few years for their trains to be built. These trains will offer improved facilities such as superfast Wi-Fi, improved customer information, air conditioning and plug sockets. However, for many, the extra seats they will provide will be the most important benefit. In the North, examples of such capacity improvements include 45 per cent more seats on trains between

Rail Engineer • April 2017

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Glasgow and Edinburgh, 12,000 extra seats on East Coast services, First Trans Pennine increasing its fleet size by 88 per cent and a 37 per cent peak capacity increase for Northern Rail, whose customers will also be pleased to see new trains replacing all the hated Pacer units. For London commuters, new trains will increase capacity on inner suburban services out of Waterloo by 20 per cent, enable Thameslink to carry up to 21,000 passengers an hour each way through London, and replace all current Greater Anglia trains with a 10 per cent bigger fleet to increase peak capacity into Liverpool Street by 55 per cent.

Surplus trains Few predicted that the number of UK rail passengers would double over the last twenty years. To avoid being similarly caught out in future, Network Rail now has a long-term

planning process that has produced market studies to assess long-term demand. ‘Looking to the Future’ (issue 115, May 2014) described how the industry’s Long Term Rolling Stock

Strategy (LTRSS), produced by RDG and several fleet owners, uses these market studies and other information to predict future rolling stock requirements. Stadler EMU for Merseyrail.

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Stadler Flirt Electric and electro-diesel multiple-units to be supplied to Abellio East Anglia.

Artist's impression of the CAF Civity UK InterCity EMU.

Hitachi Class 385.

The 2017 strategy has just been published. This records that, the UK has 13,377 rail vehicles. It includes a prediction that, by 2019, Britain will require between 14,986 and 15,212 rail vehicles, an increase to the current fleet of just under two thousand vehicles. Thus, when the current train orders have been delivered, there will be a surplus of around three thousand vehicles.

No doubt, there will be alternative uses for some of these vehicles, especially if ROSCOs slash their lease rates to encourage train operators to use them. One innovative proposal is the suggestion that HSTs could be converted into parcel trains. In

some cases, life-extension is an appropriate option, examples of this include Chiltern Railway’s use of Mark 3 coaches and ScotRail’s High Speed Train (HST) conversion, as reported elsewhere in this issue. However, it is certain that hundreds of vehicles will either be stored or scrapped, especially the older vehicles which include the 13 per cent of the current fleet built in the 1970s. The sight of large numbers of surplus vehicles may attract some criticism, but this is an insignificant issue compared with the reliability, energy efficiency and capacity benefits that the new trains on order will bring. Without doubt, this is good news for passengers and the industry. The fifth LTRSS is available on the Rail Delivery Group's website.

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

GRAHAME TAYLOR

When the t r a i n s get l o n g e r

the hose won’t reach!

he new Hitachi Class 800 trains, due to be introduced on the East Coast route, can be quite long. They come in a variety of lengths, of course, but ten coaches are what is planned. They will be able to operate using electric traction under the wires - where they exist - and under diesel power over the routes to Aberdeen and Inverness - where they do not. Progressively introduced from the end of this year, they will replace the existing eight-coach HST sets which have plied their way up and down from the North to London for over 40 years.

Preparations What of the preparations for the new trains? As is always the way, there are changes to the infrastructure that have to be made. Most of these are out of sight of the general public and involve what happens to the trains after they have done their daily duties of carrying passengers. It’s where the trains go to be fed and watered that the real work starts. Facilities have to be built to maintain and clean the units, but this article looks specifically at the vital task of making sure that there is sufficient fuel on board for the journey and that the inevitable bodily waste products of several hundred passengers are removed in an orderly fashion.

Scottish depots In Scotland, there are three depots that will look after the Class 800s. There’s the Aberdeen depot, which is run by Virgin Trains East Coast, and the Inverness depot run by Scotrail. Both of these have looked after the existing HST fleet and so both need to be altered to accommodate the Class 800s. A further complication is that the depot alterations at Aberdeen and Inverness also need to accommodate new Caledonian sleeper coaches and refurbished ScotRail HSTs as reported elsewhere in the magazine. In addition Craigentinny, currently a Virgin Trains East Coast depot, will transfer over to Hitachi once the first trains are ready to run. Story Contracting, which has extensive knowledge and expertise in delivering complex depot facilities, have been awarded a contract worth just over £4 million by the Network Rail enhancements team for the extension of refuelling and controlled emission toilet facilities

(CET) at Aberdeen and Inverness along with installations able to administer the Adblue® SCR system. Refuelling is a straightforward concept, which shouldn’t need much explanation. If the trains are longer, then the pumps, hoses and shelters need to be extended. The CETs fitted to trains these days are a change from the days of scattering unmentionables into the atmosphere something that no longer appears to be acceptable.

Selective catalytic reduction Adblue® and SCR may need some explanation especially if you have only ever owned a petrol car. AdBlue® is a non-toxic liquid that is colourless in appearance and is a solution of water and urea. To comply with Euro 6 emissions regulations, recent diesel-powered cars use SCR (selective catalytic reduction) technology to inject microscopic quantities of this liquid into the flow of exhaust gases. When the urea and water solution combines with exhaust emissions, it produces nitrogen and oxygen by breaking down mono-nitrogen oxides - gases that can be harmful and are found particularly in the fumes from diesel exhausts. This

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Aberdeen depot Work is currently under way at Aberdeen where the working restraints are relatively benign. Alan Rundell is Story’s project manager and looks after both the Aberdeen and Inverness projects. “Most of the Aberdeen servicing and refuelling takes place in the evening,” he stated. “All maintenance work on the units is carried out in the shed during the day, which means we have all day Monday to Friday to work - that is with the exception of the one sleeper train. We stand down for an hour to let it pass through the depot, to get it refuelled and then into the stabling area.” Work involves extending the fuelling apron, providing a new cantilevered canopy for the length of the new trains and providing new fuelling points and pumps, new CET pumps, a new AdBlue plant room and all the associated pipework. All this is provided in the existing layout of Aberdeen depot with the new canopy on an island between the fuelling line and the CET bypass line. Even with the new work in progress, everything has to work with the existing trains and their requirements. The tactic is to install all the new add-ons and then, when they are complete, commission everything and transfer over to the new systems.

Craigentinny Aberdeen may seem straightforward. How did Story know how to work within the confines of a depot environment? The company is not new to depot work and cites its recent project in Craigentinny depot in Edinburgh. Here the work was relatively basic, but the staging was much more complicated. Effectively Story, working under its RCDP Framework for Network Rail, was replacing the existing high-level sodium lighting with more efficient LED equivalents. Better light levels were achieved without having to change lighting controls, wire runs or power supplies. The design was by SVM Glasgow with the work on site by AFM Electrical, all managed by Story in a contract worth around £275,000. Craigentinny (pictured) has featured in several past editions of this magazine and readers have been well briefed that this depot is an intense operation. “We sat down with depot staff on a daily basis to discuss their access requirements. A back-shift arrangement gave us the best opportunity for access and offered

the least amount of disruption to the depot. Possessions and isolation of the OLE were required, adding another layer of complexity to the planning.

Inverness depot With this experience, Story has been able to plan the equally complex works at Inverness depot, where the pattern of train movements differ completely from those in Aberdeen. Between six and eight trains have to be refuelled during the day, along with all those on other shifts. This means that working on the refuelling road is not an option without some form of alternative facility being available - a temporary fuelling line complete with concrete apron and all the rest of the paraphernalia. Using the existing Harbour line, and after some permanent way alterations, this will be commissioned to allow work on the current fuel road. There is a further complication with the introduction of the new trains. They will block an existing level crossing within the depot during the fuelling operations and Story has designed a new

pedestrian crossing at the other end of the depot which will have a white light indication. This is just one part of the signalling involvement being resolved by A M Rail in conjunction with Siemens.

Buried nasties There has been a depot at Inverness since the early days of the railway and throughout that time plenty of ‘nasty substances’ will have been dripped onto the ground. Part of the design will involve the analysis of soil samples to determine the level of contamination. As a matter of strategy, the new drainage system associated with the refuelling line works will involve building-in extra capacity so as to give the oil separators a chance during extreme weather. Aberdeen has to be finished by the end of September and Inverness by the middle of October. The Hitachi class 800 trains are due to start running in Scotland at the end of October. Alan and his team have these dates well and truly in their sights. Extra-long hoses are not an option!

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

technique has been found to be an extremely effective way of bringing diesel engines up to the standard required to meet Euro 6. The new Class 800s will use this SCR system and so, along with refuelling and CET disposal, facilities are required for dealing with the AdBlue®.

Rail Engineer â&#x20AC;˘ April 2017

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

PETER STANTON

RailBaar

Rapid Charge Station

s the rail industry explores the use of battery-powered trains, there comes a need to consider how traction batteries are recharged and generally managed. Battery-powered trains are not new, there were various early examples. Experiments with accumulator railcars, as they were initially called, were conducted from around 1890 in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. Between 1955 and 1995, Deutsche Bahn in Germany successfully operated a fleet of 230 Class ETA 150 railcars utilising lead acid batteries. Japan has taken to battery rail vehicle development and has combined this with contact system electrification, charging taking place from the fixed system. British Railways, in the late 1950s, produced a battery version of its Derby Lightweight firstgeneration diesel multiple units. The unit went into service on the Aberdeen-Ballater branch line in 1958 and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board provided recharging facilities at Aberdeen Platform 1 and at Ballater. The batteries were large lead-acid units weighing about eight tonnes. Development of the traction battery continued but special strengthening of the BEMU (Battery Electric Multiple Unit) underframe was required. Charging was by shore supply cables at each end of the line, which had to be connected manually. The train either ran in to a special charging siding or careful cable management was required at the terminal. In the South, the Class 419 battery motor luggage vans were capable of running on batteries or a third rail, useful for short non-electrified sections on quayside lines at Folkestone and Dover.

Recent developments Lead-acid batteries, as used on these first-generation rail vehicles, are not the most efficient or effective form of stored energy electrical power. However, battery development has proceeded apace, as it has on road vehicles. Weight penalties are now therefore much reduced, increasing the attractiveness of battery-powered vehicles. While super-capacitors have been used on some light rail schemes, these are not really suited to heavier applications, being more useful for short sections of light rail in architecturally sensitive areas. So any use of stored energy on heavy rail will, for the foreseeable future, be a question of battery technology.

The growth of network electrification has also driven a desire for electric traction on nonelectrified routes. In 2015, a single Class 379 Bombardier Electrostar, after the installation of lithium-ion batteries, went into service on the Mayflower line (From Manningtree to Harwich) in Essex. The term IPEMU (Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit) was coined to describe it. All this development of rolling stock has led to new thoughts on how to recharge units, as there will not always be an installation of contact system electrification to provide charging facilities - particularly not at the remote end of a branch line. Furrer+Frey and Opbrid (now a Furrer+Frey company) have developed a product known as RailBaar, an ultra-high-power rapid charge station suitable for the exact purpose discussed above the charging of battery-equipped rail vehicles in service. Ankur Saxena, Furrer+Freyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project engineering manager based in the UK, described how RailBaar is a rapid-charge station for battery

German ETA 150 driving and power cars at Lauterecken-Grumbach in 1986.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Furrer+Frey Upgrading Tyne and Wear Metro ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Furrer+Frey are upgrading Tyne and Wear Metro’s electrification system. As part of the transport authority Nexus’s renewal and upgrade programme Furrer+Frey’s new FL200 Light electrification system will be installed on over 3500 structures. Furrer+Frey’s new cost effective system designed for metros, as well as light rail, uses lightweight aluminium cantilevers. Furrer+Frey Electrifying Solutions

GB@FurrerFrey.ch @FurrerFreyGB www.FurrerFrey.ch

STRUCTURAL PRECAST FOR RAILWAYS

INNOVATION in Rail Bridge Deck Construction Station Platforms Viaduct Slabs Bespoke Units

MOORE CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTD Caherty House, 41 Woodside Rd, Ballymena BT42 4QH N.I. T. 028 2565 2566 F. 028 2565 8480 E. info@moore-concrete.com

www.moore-concrete.com

BYBANEN BERGEN TRAM DEPOT, NORWAY

Phoenix range Swift automatic bi-folding doors – only solution for rail depots. Safe, energy efficient, fast, reliable and industry proven throughout the world. jewersdoors.co.uk

OXLEY TRSMD, WOLVERHAMPTON

01767 317090

A67468 Jewers Rail engineer Advert Innovation 90w x 130h.indd 1

@Jewers_Doors

21/04/2016 09:40

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

trains. RailBaar takes proven technology from tram, bus and lorry rapid charging stations and applies the same principles to the rail industry, exploiting innovations in battery power to produce an overhead automatic electric charging station for battery-powered electric trains. This facility eradicates the need for an overhead contact system and can economically extend the scope and range of independently powered trains. Furrer+Frey feels that the system could be a game changer, dramatically reducing the cost of electrification, and thus the feasibility of new electrification projects. For RailBaar to be successful, Opbrid and Furrer+Frey worked together on a collaborative project. Experience was drawn from their success with BusBaar, which various bus manufacturers and cities have deployed on road vehicles since 2010.

System features The system incorporates a platform or trackside mechanism that can be lowered to the height of any train or raised to a suitable safe height when not charging. It integrates all charging electronics into a single vertical mast for a remarkably small total footprint of less than 0.5m2. The compact overhead unit thus reduces visual impact, provides more space for passengers on the platform and allows the use of a wide variety of mounting posts to match, and complement, the existing station architecture. As a safety consideration, the design incorporates twin-contact fixed in-line current collectors on the roof of the vehicle. This offers lowest cost, weight and maintenance liability. The train installation is mechanically passive and thus offers low risk. The RailBaar design offers a number of advantages: »» With a small footprint, the equipment can be adapted to fit almost any train and station/ platform; »» The design allows a pathway to future ultrahigh-power transfer requirements; »» Safety features always ensure correct connection, even with vehicles and charging stations from different manufacturers and with differing power requirements; »» The system allows for multi-modal use with integrated road and rail transport networks; »» Its modular design is flexible and makes extending transport network routes easy so networks can grow with the strategic placement of further charging stations; »» Designed for very large standstill current and power transfer; »» An integrated cover offers an additional level of safety. The basic infrastructure provides the ability to charge the vehicle with route-end platform-side charging or at depot facilities where there may

Two RailBaar units at a terminus station. be a 24/7 depot charger for applications such as airport transfers or routes with multiple batteryoperated trains. A mini-charging depot for quick one-to-three minute top-ups is also possible. Charging time can be a major consideration, with turn-round or dwell times potentially being under pressure for a return or connecting service. Consideration of the supply capacity at the charging site is essential as a full charge will exert a significant power demand. The system’s fast mechanical connection maximises the charging time. The compact nature of the RailBaar design, with all of the moving parts contained within a protective hood, allows it to be mounted on a wide variety of supports, giving designers and architects the freedom to blend the plant visually into the terminal design. The equipment may also be attached to existing structures such as buildings and platform shelters. Having all of the electronics inside the charging post eliminates the need for a bulky external electronics enclosure. This further helps in planning, site preparation, and ease of installation.

Advantages in operation The system has many in-built safety features. The RailBaar itself is switched off when not in use and may be sited at the end of a platform the isolated system can be regarded as lower in risk than live contact systems. In operation, the RailBaar gantry automatically lowers the current collector onto the contact strips mounted onto the roof of the train and, as the train departs, the RailBaar moves the current collectors safely away. Use of the RailBaar system will allow a batterypowered train to be continuously in service while ultrafast charging permits the use of smaller, lighter traction batteries. There is little, if any, weight penalty on the rail vehicle as there are no moving parts thereon, reducing the potential vehicle mass. As there are likely to be more trains than charging stations, the cost per vehicle of charging arrangements is kept to a minimum. And RailBaar need not be the only source of power for the batteries, regenerative braking systems can provide additional recharging.

As detailed above, RailBaar has been developed from existing installations for buses and so has been in use since 2010. The technology is also currently being installed on tram routes and is under development for lorry applications. One recent installation by Furrer+Frey was in China on the 20.3km Huai’an light rail line, which opened in February. The line is entirely catenaryfree and utilises battery-powered LRVs, supplied by CRRC Zhuzhou, which recharge at charging points at end of the route. In addition, Furrer+Frey has supplied two all-inone charging stations, each 300kW, for a project in Utrecht, Netherlands and another two, this time 150kW each, to CAF for a project in Valladolid, Spain. Furrer+Frey is examining various further options - the boundary of existing third-rail systems would seem to be an attractive option as the use of RailBaar could avoid high installation costs on what could be a very low-use periphery of the system. As the concept of the independently-powered electric multiple unit continues to grow in popularity, the RailBaar system appears to offer an environmentally sensitive solution to charging points while reducing risk.

Collector ‘pantograph’ on a Volvo bus.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Key Clamp handrail systems and crash barrier solutions Our products offer reliable protection utilising strong galvanised steel. Our Key Clamp system is efficient to install, utilising only an allen key and grubscrew system. Our crash barriers are designed to resist heavy impacts and comply with all BS standards.

DISCUSS YOUR REQUIREMENTS CALL US ON 0117 970 2420

ALL PRODUCTS ARE IN STOCK AND AVAILABLE FOR FAST DELIVERY.

Visit us online today at eziklampsystems.com

See Us At Railtex

Stand No.

V10

Transforming the Market by Turning Our Customers’ Wishes Into Reality

PA05/06003 Class II Hybrid

PA05/06003 Economy Range

The ONLY Range with a 20kV Insulated BOX!

Hybrid Standard Rectifier & Transformers Range

• Zero Inrush • Legacy compatibility • Patented Insulated Coating (protection up to 20kV) • Eco friendly & High Efficiency

• Zero Inrush • Insulated to 3kV • Eco friendly • High Efficiency • Full Class II Certification

CLASS II HYBRID RATINGS All Ratings Available in Insulated / Economy Ranges

250VA 1400VA

500VA 2000VA

1000VA 3000VA

Insulated Range 2x5 ADC 2x8 ADC

FT TRANSFORMERS LTD

+44 (0) 121 451 3204

www.ft-transformers.co.uk

1x10 ADC

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Prioritise staff protection trackside and in the depot

Rail Engineer • April 2017

ScotRail’s ‘new’ HSTs

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

DAVID SHIRRES

n 2012, Transport Scotland published the results of its rail passenger service consultation. This considered how the railway should develop and the types of passenger services required. Its results were incorporated into the specification for the ScotRail franchise which was renewed in 2014. One conclusion from this consultation exercise was that passengers traveling from central Scotland to Aberdeen and Inverness much preferred to travel in Virgin Trains East Coast High Speed Trains (HSTs) from London than ScotRail’s Class 170 diesel multiple units (DMUs). For this reason, the invitation to tender (ITT) document for the ScotRail franchise included a specification for improved rolling stock for Scotland’s internal inter-city services that could have been based on the HST’s mark 3 coach. In its franchise bid, Abellio’s response to this requirement was that it would provide refurbished HSTs on the routes that serve Scotland’s seven cities (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness).

ScotRail HSTs at Glasgow Queen Street. GWR automatic train protection equipment will be left in place, but isolated as it is a part of the speedometer system. A new door interlock emergency override switch will be fitted to allow the driver to stop the train away from any hazards. Brush Traction will also apply a new livery to the power cars. Although branding of the HSTs is still at the concept stage, it is likely that each power car and coach will feature iconic images of Scotland’s seven cities.

ScotRail’s 26 HSTs The HSTs will be phased into service from summer 2018, with the full fleet operational for the May 2019 timetable change. This aligns with the completion of Network Rail’s Highland main line journey time improvements project. 54 power cars and 121 coaches will be leased from Angel Trains. These will make up 17 five-coach trains and 9 fourcoach trains with two power cars spare. The 2019 timetable will require 23 trains in service each day with five coach sets operating Central Belt to Aberdeen services and the four coach trains generally running to Inverness. The number of through services from Inverness to the Central Belt via Aberdeen will also be increased. ScotRail’s HST project manager Chris Tait commented: “We’re looking to do something special!” - these trains will be transformed after they are released from Great Western Railway (GWR) later this year as the new Hitachi IEP trains are introduced. Brush Traction in Loughborough will work on the power cars whilst the coaches will be transformed by Wabtec in Doncaster, which will review options to undertake a C4 or C6 overhaul whilst they are being refurbished. To ensure structural integrity of the vehicles up to 2030, a large part of the power car work is the rectification of any corrosion or degradation of glass reinforced plastic cab exterior. Cabs are to be improved with better seats and fitted with forward facing CCTV. The

Vestibule showing sliding doors and bike rack.

Power-operated doors There will be four types of coaches. The business-class coach (TFC) will include the train’s catering area and have a self-service bottled drinks and snacks facility for their passengers. Of the types of standard class coaches, one has no special features (TSL), one has two wheelchair spaces and a toilet for persons with reduced mobility (TSD) and one has a rack for two bicycles (TS). Each train can carry eight bicycles, three of which can be carried in a rack in each of the power car’s luggage compartments, although these will only be available for end-to-end journeys.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

New trains from old

Business class. The new external power-operated sliding doors will be manufactured by Vapor Stone Rail Systems, part of the Wabtec Group in Mexico and USA. Chris advises that the worldwide use of these doors with their simple electric worm drive and over-centre lock has proved to be highly reliable and that their fitment is relatively straightforward. To give train crews consistency of operation, the door controls will be similar to those on the class 170 DMUs. Coach interiors will be completely revamped with ample luggage space provided. Business class will have leather reclining seats and the new standard class seats will be provided by Grammer. In standard seating areas, the GWR table seat pitch of 1680mm is to be extended to the 1800mm in ScotRail’s class 170 DMUs. Seating will also be better aligned with windows. However, this is not a straightforward requirement, as it became apparent that such alterations would need to be validated by full-scale crash testing. Further investigation revealed that such crash testing would not be necessary if seat alterations did not change the table-to-seat distance. Hence the solution was 120mm wider tables, although this requires a destructive crush test to confirm the table’s strength. The coaches are to be fitted with the passenger systems that are currently being fitted to ScotRail DMUs as part of their refurbishment programme. The existing Nomad Wi-Fi system will have new dual element 3G/4G antennas and have a Wi-Fi to shore capability. Infodev is providing the infra-red passenger counting equipment that will download information at key base stations, and R2p the hi-definition CCTV cameras, two of which will be in each coach. These will have a remote download capability with the Wi-Fi system. The centre-saloon dot matrix passenger information system will come from TrainFX. Modern controlled emission toilets from Semvac will be fitted, providing a significant environmental improvement.

The iconic HST is now over forty years old. It ensured the success of British Rail’s inter-city service and is still the world’s fastest diesel train, although the ScotRail HSTs will have a maximum speed of 100 mph. With around ten million miles on the clock these trains are approaching retirement for long-distance services as they are about to be replaced by IEPs. However, as ScotRail is about to demonstrate with its reincarnation of these trains, there is still much life left in them. Some might think it odd that a train operator would wish to invest in such old, well-travelled trains. Yet, like the executioner’s axe at the Tower of London with new handles and new blades, their key components have been changed many times over and the work done by Wabtec and Brush will, no doubt, deliver a life-extended, reliable, refurbished train. This new HST fleet will provide a 33 per cent increase in capacity on Scotland’s internal inter-city network. Their high power-to-weight ratio will deliver the reduction in journey times required by the franchise specification and ensure the severe gradients in the highlands are not a problem. They will be costlier to operate and maintain than current rolling stock. However, their re-vamped mark 3 coaches will generate extra business by giving passengers what they want. This must be good for business and for Scotland’s passenger railway. ScotRail's Seven Cities.

INVERNESS

ABERDEEN

Depot alterations ScotRail’s HSTs will require significant alterations to depots and servicing points. Moreover, they are not the only new trains coming to Scotland. IEPs will soon be running on the east coast to Aberdeen and Inverness, Caledonian Sleepers are introducing new sleeper trains and new class 385 electric trains will soon be running between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Chris advised that the respective project teams for these new trains are working well together to ensure that common servicing facilities are compatible for all new rolling stock, for example, by extended hoses and cabling. The most significant item of work is at Haymarket depot where the eastern end of the maintenance shed is to be extended by 39 metres to accommodate five-coach HSTs. The depot is also to get an improved external crane for power car engine changes.

DUNDEE PERTH

STIRLING

GLASGOW

EDINBURGH

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

The maintenance of coaches at Haymarket is a first for the depot, which to date has serviced powered vehicles. Hence it needs a shunting vehicle for which alternatives to the class 08 shunter, which was introduced in 1952, are being considered. In conjunction with IEP works, Inverness depot is being modified to accommodate five-coach HSTs. This includes the provision of extractor fans. The facility at Perth is being upgraded to accommodate fourcoach units, as anything longer is currently not possible. There are also, however, long term plans for a new maintenance facility at Perth.

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

IT’S TIME TO TACKLE LEAVES ON THE LINE... T

his was the headline of a press release from rolling stock leasing company Porterbrook in December 2016. It described how to reduce the risk of wheel damage on Class 15X diesel multiple units (Classes 150, 153, 155 and 156) through wheel slide, particularly during the autumn leaf-fall season. As is well known, leaves fall onto the track and get rolled onto the rail head forming a tough surface coating which has exceptionally low friction properties when wet. The task was to fit a new design of wheel slide protection (WSP) to a typical Class 15X diesel multiple unit. Class 15X DMUs, generally known as Sprinters, were built in the 1980s and, perhaps surprisingly, were not fitted with WSP. The trains frequently suffer wheel damage during the autumn leaf fall season. Leaf fall is widely recognised as a problem within the rail sector, causing delays, a lack of availability of trains for passenger service and leading to longer stopping distances in some conditions. Porterbrook Leasing owns around 250 Class 15X vehicles and identified that it could add value to its customers’ operations if it could find a solution to the problem. Rail Engineer talked to Alexandra Greig, who was Porterbook’s project manager for the prototype installation. She explained that they had chosen a Metro-Cammell built two-car unit, number 156419. The train had originally been fitted with a device to detect and control wheel spin under power, but, as already mentioned, had never had WSP. Class 156 DMUs are two car units and each car is fitted with a Cummins diesel engine, Voith transmission and Gmeinder final drives located on both axles of the inner bogie. Porterbrook worked with SNC-Lavalin, Knorr Bremse Rail Services (KBRS), Loram and Abellio East Anglia. KBRS provided a new design of wheel slide protection for the UK. Alexandra said that, as far as Porterbrook is aware, this is the first time WSP has been retrofitted to a train on the UK main line that has tread brakes. She added the project was a team effort - Porterbrook acted as lead organisation, KBRS supplied and configured the equipment to ensure the design was suitable for the application, SNC-Lavalin led the system

integration to the existing vehicles and Loram carried out the installation of the first-in-class unit. The train operator, Abellio East Anglia, supported throughout the whole programme and facilitated dynamic testing.

Configuration A general description of WSP is provided in the panel. Alexandra described the particular system fitted to the Class 156. Speed sensors were fitted to each axle on the outer, trailer bogies. On the power bogies, both wheelsets are coupled through the final drive, so only one sensor was required on each power bogie. The three sensors on each car feed a KBRS ESRA WSP electronic unit. Three WSP blowdown valves were fitted on each car, one for the power bogie and one for each axle on the trailer bogie. A ‘low brake supply’ pressure switch is fitted to the brake reservoir on each car to disable WSP if the air becomes too low, and there is a fault indication lamp in each cab.

MALCOLM DOBELL

Installation It is easy to say: “Just fit these components and it will work”. With older trains, there are often some significant challenges or constraints that make it more complex and, as the trains are in great demand, there is also a need to make the modification as easy and quick as possible to implement. Alexandra said that everyone was pleased that the WSP could be added without having to uprate the 24V power supply or the compressed air system. They also set themselves the objective/constraint of using only bogie mountings that were already in place - no drilling or welding - and confirming the installation could take place without lifting the vehicle from the bogies. Fitting the speed sensor to the cab-end axle was particularly challenging as this area is close to the crew access steps, and special covers needed to be designed to avoid any risk to staff getting their feet caught in this tachometer.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Testing As stated in the panel, a great deal of confidence in the performance of a WSP system can be obtained from off-train testing. Alexandra reported that KBRS introduced its WSP system, built on their ESRA platform, for this first application in the UK. KBRS had worked with ESG Rail to prove the system on its WSPER (WSP Evaluation Rig - described in issue 123, January 2014), which was configured to represent the performance of a Class 156 unit. Having gained confidence in the performance of the system on the rig, practical tests were carried out to confirm the rig results, both at limited speed at Loram’s facility and subsequently in night-time tests supported by Abellio Greater Anglia on the network.

The proof of the pudding… Everyone worked hard to get the unit into service for the 2016 autumn leaf-fall season. Alexandra was pleased to report that this unit performed extremely well and the wheels remained flat-free, unlike similar Class 15Xs which had to be stopped for wheel reprofiling. There is a general view, around the industry, that 2016 was a particularly challenging autumn, so this performance is particularly impressive. Colin Dobson, the engineering director at Abellio East Anglia, commented: “The WSP system installed on the 156 provided a critical capability during our most operationally vulnerable and challenging period. We were also able to gather invaluable comparative data to show how the system both added operational resilience and protected service levels.” So, with all concerned with the project pleased with the success of the prototype, Alexandra is considering the next steps. Several Porterbrook customers of Class 15X fleets have expressed interest in the WSP solution and discussions are ongoing. With some further design work to adapt the Class 156 design to Class 150, 153 and 155, it is now possible to roll out WSP to Porterbrook’s whole Class 15X fleet base, subject to customer take-up.

Wheel Slide Protection (WSP)

or anyone not familiar with the term, WSP is used to describe the system fitted to most passenger trains to prevent the wheels locking in the event of low adhesion between the wheel and the rail. If you drive a modern car, it will almost certainly have an Anti-Lock Braking System or ABS. For all practical purposes WSP on trains is ABS. A sensor is usually fitted to each wheelset, which sends pulses representing wheel speed to an electronic unit on the coach. The electronic unit compares the signals. If all the signals are more or less the same, then all is well. If one of the signals deviates from the norm or one or all of them decelerates at an unfeasible rate, then the unit determines there is slide. The action taken is that a signal is sent to a valve on the bogie or wheelset affected (depending on the complexity of the system specified) to release the brakes on the bogie or axle until it determines that the wheel has returned to normal speed. At that point the brakes are reapplied. The clever feature of modern WSP systems is in the pattern of brake release and reapplication that minimises the time that the brake effort is reduced. This might be a series of release pulses to evacuate air pressure from the brake actuators and get the wheels rotating at the right speed, followed by several shorter application pulses that ensure the wheels get the maximum braking effort whilst not being provoked into slide. A modest amount of slide between the rotating wheel and the rail will usually maximise the available wheel/rail adhesion. It will also help to maximise the benefit of sanders where fitted. The electronic box generally controls all this in software, but the boxes also have hardware timers that prevent the software system holding the brakes off for more than a pre-determined time. Most systems are rated Safety Integrity Level 2 (SIL 2) as defined in EN 61508. It is very hard to test WSP systems on the railway. Providing controllable and repeatable low adhesion conditions is far from trivial. These days, WSP systems are usually type-tested using

ESG’s WSPER rig.

‘hardware in the loop’ simulation rigs such as the WSPER rig developed originally by the former AEA Technology/DeltaRail and now provided by ESG. Many more factors can be varied and many more simulations can be carried out than is possible in practical tests with the added benefit that it can be done in a warm laboratory with no risk of flatting any wheels! Moreover, the results from the rig are usually a much more reliable indicator of service performance than on-railway tests. Once there is confidence that the WSP system works properly on the rig, confirmation tests are carried out using soapy water or paper tape that is rolled onto the rail head and then wetted - a very good simulation for leaves on the line. These tests confirm that the simulated arrangement has been correctly replicated on the vehicles. This description assumes all-friction braking. Blended friction and dynamic brakes add a layer of complication which is outside the scope of this article.

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

The new WSP also detects wheel spin during motoring, so the existing wheel spin control box was redundant. The WSP control box is fitted in the vacated space in the equipment cupboard at the non-driving end of each car, following the modification. The blowdown/ holding valves were fitted to the underframes as close as possible to the brake actuators they are controlling. This is all connected with new or changed wiring and piping. The design and installation management was undertaken by SNC-Lavalin, with the physical works carried out by Loram in its Derby facility.

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Rail Engineer • April 2017

WHEELS KEEP TURNING T

he wheels on the UK’s largest light rail network will continue turning, thanks to the early completion of a brand new lathe. The flanged wheels of all rail vehicles, while they may look superficially quite simple in shape, are actually machined to closely controlled tolerances. The profile of a wheel is matched to the profile of the rail it runs on to minimise wear and to ensure smooth running. If the profiles on either component are out of tolerance, excessive wear takes place, which necessitates expensive replacement, and even derailments can result.

(Left) Pit complete and (right) under construction.

Manchester Metrolink’s fleet of M5000 trams, which was introduced into service between 2009 and 2016, runs on-street and on dedicated lines. When sharing public roads with pedestrians and vehicles, grooved rails are used, embedded into the tarmac of the roads. Off-street, they are conventional railway lines. To take account of these two environments, and the different speeds used on and off-street, the profiles on the trams’ wheels have to be carefully controlled. When they wear, they need to be re-machined to restore the profile. For that, Metrolink operator RATP Dev, who facilitated the works, providing technical help and support, needed a good quality, precise and efficient wheel lathe that could machine the correct profile into a tram’s wheels while they are still fitted to the vehicle.

New lathe for Trafford Sheffield-based rail depot equipment specialist Mechan helped Polish wheel lathe experts Koltech obtain an order from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) for the provision and assisted installation of a new TUP 650 lathe by assisting with the tender and contract negotiations. Mechan, as the sole UK and Irish supplier of Koltech product, will have responsibility for servicing the lathe once installed and commissioned. Cairn Cross Civil Engineering, working in partnership with Metrolink, Koltech and Mechan, started work on installing the new wheel lathe at Metrolink’s Trafford depot in June 2016. Cairn Cross, a multi-disciplinary design-and-build specialist with over 25 years of experience within the rail sector, has successfully installed wheel lathes throughout the UK, from London to Edinburgh, since 2012. This latest project is the seventh lathe to have been installed in five years. The Koltech underfloor wheel lathe can be used to recondition the wheel profiles of any rail vehicle without removing them from the carriage. The

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Tram on lathe.

Service and safety To service the wheel lathe, the client required the installation of a new 1.5 tonne jib crane working at a six-metre radius. This is integrated into the existing steel building structure. An interlocking system was incorporated as an extension of the existing depot protection to provide safety and security for operational staff working on the lathe. Interlocking allows users to safely operate the machinery in a controlled and safe manner. The system was extended to include the battery shunter, overhead line, jib crane and road protection. There is a complementary fume and dust extractor and the installation of a lone worker alarm system provides operators with an additional safety mechanism in case of any emergencies.

Cairn Cross’s electrical team provided distribution boards and electrical cabling to power the lathe, including the use of Endurance luminaires to provide appropriate working lux levels within the pit. These provide the depot with three hours of emergency lighting should it be subject to power failure. The existing bonding system was modified to ensure safety of the machine and associated equipment from potential DC stray currents within the existing system. Aaron Morgan, Cairn Cross Civil Engineering’s site manager said: “The early completion of this wheel lathe installation has come about due to the fantastic working relationship between all stakeholders”.

Transport for Greater Manchester’s head of Metrolink, Danny Vaughan added: “Having just opened the brand new Second City Crossing and started work on a new line out to the Trafford Centre, it’s more important than ever before that we maintain our 120-strong fleet to the highest standards. “This new lathe will ensure a more efficient way of working and is therefore a hidden benefit that the customer won’t be aware of but that will ultimately help us to keep them, and the network, moving. “I’d like to thank all involved for their work in procuring and installing the new wheel lathe.”

ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Trafford depot order has internal axle box supports to fix the trams to the machine and is equipped with a swarf crusher and conveyor to remove all waste metal produced during the turning process. All the design work was completed by the Cairn Cross in-house team, providing the client with a comprehensive design package and liaising with Koltech throughout the programme. The work called for structural modifications to an existing pit - the floor had to be raised by 1.5 meters - along with reinforced concrete plinths to seat the new wheel lathe.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Safeguarding ROLLING STOCK/DEPOTS

Maintenance Depots

n 23 February 2017, it was 10 years since the last passenger or staff fatality in a train accident on Great Britain’s national main line rail network. However, this does not reflect the true risks that face the industry’s workforce. Whilst the last decade has seen no fatalities as a result of train accidents, the ORR Rail Safety Statistics report a total of 23 workforce fatalities and 36,764 RIDDOR reported injuries during this period. It is difficult to obtain a precise figure of the cost of a fatality but, in addition to the unquantifiable enormous cost of human grief and suffering, and when considering the cost of legal proceedings, medical and emergency services charges, associated damage to equipment, loss of production and insurance costs, then a seven-figure sum is not unreasonable. So, clearly, it is vital in both human and financial contexts that everything possible must be done to reduce these risks, especially when severe hazards such as moving trains and high voltage equipment are present in the workplace. Train movements within a maintenance depot are an obvious occupational hazard in the rail industry and, whilst over the past two decades depot infrastructure has undergone changes which have clearly made a positive impact on safety, there is still room for improvement. Better lighting arrangements, communication systems, access points, switches/crossings, signal sighting, fouling points and SPAD traps all contribute to increased safety. However, to achieve Network Rail’s goal of “everyone home safe, everyday”, there is more to be done.

Technology has an important role to play It is often the case that accidents are caused by human actions and, unfortunately, given the circumstances and surroundings, a mistake in a depot is more likely to have a serious impact than it would in a different environment. Modern technology is an important part of the answer for Britain’s depots. Innovative systems such as Zonegreen’s SMART Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS™) offer solutions that provide added safety controls and communications to help ensure that any human errors do not end in disaster. Zonegreen’s new generation DPPS was unveiled in 2014, following its first complete overhaul in 15 years. Since then, it has been specified and installed at both Thameslink depots, Newton Heath in Manchester, all four new depots built for the Department for Transport’s Intercity Express Programme, and Crossrail’s Old Oak Common facility. The system offers intuitive functionality, based on a fourbutton controller and a graphical interface that can be programmed in any language. It is operated using personal datakeys and combines

Road end control and interlocking panels. powered de-railers, road end control panels, train detection equipment and warning beacons. This advanced and thoroughly tested system provides essential protection to staff in the depot maintenance environment and Zonegreen has invested many hundreds of thousands of pounds in its development. Following six years in development, a host of features have been added, including remote configuration and assistance, making overseas installations straightforward and cost effective. The customer-centric focus of the new DPPS extends to its ergonomic design. A tactile membrane has improved durability, whilst stateof-the-art, high-quality electronic components reduce power consumption, delivering further cost savings. By continuing to utilise distributed intelligent technologies, Zonegreen has also ensured that, if an error is detected on one road, normal operation can continue throughout the rest of the depot. This minimises disruption and represents a significant advantage over centralised control systems.

Standardised software is used to run DPPS, which means it can be configured to the unique layout of any facility whilst ensuring each depot still benefits from years of extensive refinement and testing. Every installation complies with current safety standards, as well as electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) railway guidelines. Zonegreen’s Depot Manager computer system displays and records all actions taken on the DPPS. Depot Manager can be used to visualise the status of the depot protection system, demonstrating where staff are working and the status of any interlocked equipment. In addition, the logging facility not only provides full traceability in the event of an incident, it also generates a wealth of data that can be used to optimise depot operations. Of course, nothing can completely eradicate the potential of an accident being caused by a human action but it is possible, by implementing these new technologies, to put complementary measures in place to ensure that such incidents are kept to a minimum. Powered derailer.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Railway insurance

takes specialist knowledge

“E

veryone home safe every day” is the maxim coined by Network Rail. Indeed, most businesses working on our railways make safety and employee protection part of their company mantra. In one of the most safety-critical industry sectors in the world, rail contractors invest a lot of time, money and resources to reduce the risk of accidents. In the year 2015/16, for the first time since the Government’s Office of Rail and Road began its series of safety reports, there were no workforce fatalities. Workforce injuries on the mainline were down by 7.7 per cent on the previous period, although there were still 6,597, of which 157 were major ones. The UK rail industry is experiencing a period of major investment and development, with landmark projects including HS2, Crossrail and Northern Powerhouse. High-quality engineering is imperative from the great many principal and sub-contractors involved. Hand-in-hand with this must go worker safety and protection. But what about protecting companies from all the legal implications that are inevitably part of every incident and accident that occurs?

Lack of understanding Insurance for rail contractors is much like every other kind of insurance: a necessary part of life. And like car or home insurance, rail contractors often choose a policy based on price or simplicity of choice, without looking carefully at how it protects them. This approach can prove extremely expensive in the event of a claim. Keven Parker (inset right), director of Jobson James Rail, is concerned about the widespread use of insurance generalists in the rail industry: “Most brokers don’t know how to quote for a rail company. Many try to get the rail company to fit the quotation criteria used by insurers who know nothing about rail but offer cheap online insurances. The rail company only finds out there

is a problem when they try to claim and the insurer refuses to pay, citing non-disclosure of material facts about the railway operations.” Jobson James Rail specialises in securing the most effective policies for labour suppliers, train operating companies, rail contractors, rolling stock companies, signalling installers and many other kinds of organisations working in the rail industry. Its rail client base currently stands at 130, a figure which is growing month by month. Keven finds that 75 per cent of the employer’s liability, personal liability and professional indemnity policies he looks at, that have been arranged by general insurance brokers, contain very relevant exclusions that could invalidate cover for a rail contracting business. “Any serious accident or fatality can ruin a rail company’s insurance reputation for years. When we meet rail companies, we quickly establish that insurance is not a simple transaction and the buying criteria should be a quality-based decision to arrange the right cover for the business.”

Niche supplier Jobson James Rail has carved out a niche due to its comprehensive knowledge of the rail industry, the risks and the protection needed to provide complete, cost effective insurance. Its team is highly experienced in analysing existing policies from other brokers, identifying areas that leave the business vulnerable. A bespoke insurance programme can then be created which covers the company or individual for all

their needs - assets, business continuity and revenue protection, and legal liabilities. There is also a service exclusively for self-employed rail workers. This bespoke approach uses risk analysis techniques to present railway companies more professionally. For one railway client, this resulted in a reduction in annual premiums by £178,000 on its employer’s and public liability, work and plant insurance - the result of four months of work to understand, analyse and strategically present the business professionally to niche rail insurers. A key part of Jobson James Rail’s work is also the analysis of contracts, to determine what liabilities the company has accepted, and careful renegotiation to avoid onerous clauses. “We are usually cheaper than other brokers because we write a quality risk analysis describing the rail activities and highlight how safe a rail business is and its investment in training/accreditations. This absolves the rail company of its obligation to disclose all material facts and we usually achieve the right cover while reducing the premium cost,” adds Keven.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

All Change! The rail industry needs to change over the next 20 years

“We must make the case for the railway, and we must do it not just with words, but with deeds. We must earn respect from passengers and politicians by what we do, not what we say. “So it is not a question of whether to change, but how, and when.”

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

Passengers

hris Burchell, chair of the Rail Delivery Group, delivered this year’s George Bradshaw address at the Institution of Civil Engineers. Speaking to a group of almost 200 industry leaders, he chose ‘Change’ as his topic.

The George Bradshaw address is given every year by industry leaders to their peers. Last year it was delivered by then Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin, the year before was the turn of Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne. Both Carne and current Rail Minister Paul Maynard were present to hear Chris Burchell, sitting together in the second row. Opening his talk, Chris Burchell said he seemed to have become “a career railwayman - not something I envisaged when as a final year student I was applying to every graduate scheme I could find an application form for, and yet I landed up at Railtrack.” Chris was also at Thames Trains in 1996, then Southern, and is now managing director at Arriva. He has chaired the National Task Force for six years and is now also the new chair of the Rail Delivery Group.

The railway in society Having established his pedigree, he looked back at the railway’s history. “Look around any British city,” he invited his audience, “and you can see how the railway has shaped our cityscapes. There are over 300 pubs named after the railway. Station Road is the second most popular street name.

“Whole towns like Swindon and Crewe grew from villages. The railway was the catalyst for the seaside holiday, made fish and chips the national dish, and even invented our modern concept of time, with the publication of timetables by men like Bradshaw creating the need to synchronise the nation’s clocks.” These ways in which the railways have changed Britain led Chris on to his main topic for the evening, the way in which the railways now must change yet again. In fact, as he stated: “The only constant factor in the long life of Britain’s railway has been, and remains, change. “The railway has grown and has had to find ways to evolve and modernise many times already in the past. We are at a crucial turning point, and unless we manage change, embrace change and lead change now, our industry will go backwards. “New technology is changing every area of our society. And alongside the technological revolution is a social revolution in culture, habits and attitudes.” Then he added some words of caution: “The railway has no right to exist in perpetuity, we must continue to justify our existence amidst this maelstrom of economic, technological and societal change.

He reminded his audience of the railway’s recent achievements - carrying twice as many passengers as twenty years ago, adding value to the economy, getting people off roads into safer trains, and hence reducing CO2 emissions, and employing 216,000 people around the country. But he was also realistic. “We have to be honest about when we let people down too. Really honest. “I catch the train at Haywards Heath. But it could be any line taking people to work. On those terrible mornings when things are going wrong for people, all of the statistics I quoted just now would count for very little. “When you’re late for work, have to cancel client meetings or miss bedtime stories with your children, you’re not interested in the statistics. “The huge role we play in the economy is real journeys made by real people, for work, for business, for leisure and for love. When it goes smoothly, people get the level of service that they should expect. And when it goes wrong, it ruins people’s days, upsets their plans, makes people stressed. “We must be alive to criticism, and listen closely to what people are telling us.” Chris then returned to his earlier comments, and the need for change. “The question is how to deliver change for the better, not change for the worse? Forwards not backwards? Progress not decline? This is the question that we all must address. “And our answer must land firmly on the side of the people, and the communities and businesses who depend on the railway. A railway for passengers, for freight, for the whole country.” Taking a moment to reflect on the effects of privatisation, and competition, Chris reflected that

Rail Engineer • April 2017 they had led to a plethora of different systems and different technologies. Recently, it had been discovered that there were 70 different ways of relaying passenger information to customers, leading to confusion at times of disruption. That has now been brought under control. Localised competition can be a good thing, driving down prices. But complexity should be avoided. “We need to retain the best elements and advantages that the competitive market offers but at the same time, couple this with the best elements of system and government, when we take a network-level view of things for our customers. A daily obsession with a quality experience for our customers, coupled to a long-term sense of network stewardship over a precious national asset. “Now, there are those who believe that the way forward is to go backwards, to the structures and systems of the past, in pursuit of the golden age of rail. But if such an age ever existed, it was only in our imaginations. It certainly didn’t exist for many of the customers who experienced it. “That’s not to say at all that the current system cannot be improved. We don’t want to move backwards, but we don’t want to stand still either. We must move forwards. “Because it can be better, and it needs to be better, to deliver further success in the next 20 years. Change is what this industry needs, what our customers deserve.” “Customers are our alpha and omega, our beginning and our end. We need to engage with their criticisims, their aspirations and their frustrations. “We need to do the things they demand: clean, safe, comfortable trains which run on time, which cost a fare which seems reasonable, with access to Wi-Fi and a seat, and clear information and redress when things go wrong. “Doing the right things in the right way builds customer confidence and trust, and means that when there are challenges, people give us the benefit of the doubt.”

Railway staff But Chris didn’t restrict all of his comments to relationships with passengers. “I want us to build a new partnership with our people,” he stated. “You’ll have seen today that more industrial action on our network is looming. “I don’t believe that anyone in the railway management, unions, our people - wants a railway that continues to be disrupted and that

lets down the people who depend on it. I want to see these disputes resolved as quickly as possible. “We all need to recognise that the railway needs to change to deliver the service that our customers expect and the economy deserves. There can be no attachment to old ways of working. Failure to effectively modernise puts future investment at significant risk. “As we embark on a fourth industrial revolution with new technologies and opportunities, the very nature of work is changing including on the railway.” He added that the very make-up of the railway’s employees was changing. “Forty per cent of our workforce is over fifty years old. As they retire, many after decades of tireless service to the railway, we must attract new men and women to take up their mantle. “A generation born after the end of British Rail. Some born in this new century. “So that valuable experience and expertise meets fresh millennial talent, new ideas, new ways of working.”

Government As well as its relationship with its customers, and its staff, the railway’s dealing with government has to change too. “I believe that 20 years on from the end of British Rail it is time for a more mature relationship between industry and government to take us forward, together. Not parent-child, but adult-adult. It must recognise that the relationship is symbiotic. We need each other to succeed. “I believe there is a vital role for government in changing our industry for the better. “But governments need to recognise that we need our freedom to innovate, to grow and to access new sources of investment. We need government to help us where they can, and to remove any obstacles on the line which may hinder our progress. “Network Rail’s nascent devolution of power from the centre to Routes, whose targets are increasingly being aligned and driven by customers, is a good example of industry leading change. Enabled by government, this will bring track and train closer together and reflect customer priorities. “In another example, the simplification of ticketing across the whole network will require a commitment from government. And, as in other cases, it is up to us as an industry to inform ministers how these changes can be made, to speak ‘truth to power’ about the winners and losers, to propose solutions, and to help handle the consequences.”

The railway itself Having discussed the railway’s relationship with its customers, its staff and, now, government, Chris Burchell turned to the sector’s own organisation. “Increasingly, across the public services, there is a recognition that top-down targets and strict command and control is an outmoded method to deliver quality and innovation. We’ve seen how targets can skew performance, stifle innovation, and reduce the system’s agility to address real people’s needs. “First we saw it in private manufacturing, and more recently in public services such as health and education. “Instead of top-down command and control, I believe we need to see the railway system for what it is: a system. With routes, train operators and the supply chain working together as a team to focus on the customer.” Over the course of the evening, Chris Burchell had emphasised his belief that the rail industry needs to change, and keep changing. That the industry and government need to work together, but that competition will work to keep costs down. He finished off by stating: “The system needs the rigours of competition from an enhanced, more open franchising model balanced with clear network values, principles and leadership. “It needs increasing investment from more sources. “It needs greater accountability to customers and passenger groups, perhaps on a localised, devolved level - the pilot of an independently chaired Board with customer representation in Great Western is hopefully the first of many. “It needs the enthusiastic support from governments, of whatever hue. It needs the big projects such as the Elizabeth Line and HighSpeed rail links to be built as quickly as possible. “Most of all, it needs the active support from a majority of the population. “That’s my vision: a dynamic system, with industry-led improvements, driven bottom-up by customer demands, with the capacity to meet another doubling of passengers over the next twenty years.” The audience was left with Chris’ overarching belief in change, but not in the detail, the minutiae. There was no mention of driver only operation, or digital railway, or traffic management. He set out what needs to be done overall, while leaving the industry itself to plan exactly how to do it.

Following his address, Chris Burchell joined Mark Carne and Ailie MacAdam to take questions from the floor, hosted by Helia Ebrahimi (left).

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Unseen

hazard! PHOTO: GWR

STUART MARSH

s a small child, those dire parental warnings about standing too close to the platform edge instilled an inbuilt respect for passing trains that still resonates today. There was, apparently, a grave danger of being ‘sucked in’ … or indeed ‘off’ as the infamous signs at Penrith railway station once proclaimed. Yes, albeit briefly, those unfortunately worded notices really did exist! Having gone viral on the Internet, they weren’t long in disappearing, but was their intended message based on fact? Could the draught from passing trains really blow a person off their feet? The short answer is yes. Prior to the introduction of high-speed trains in the 1970s, British Rail conducted research into the possible effects of slipstreams on station users and trackside staff. It was continued by BR during the1980s and has been taken forward by other organisations to the present day. One result has been the familiar yellow warning lines painted along station platforms. Usually positioned 1500mm from the platform edge, these lines are mandatory if trains pass at more than 100 mph, or freight trains at more than 60 mph. At the time of their inception, they were intended to mitigate the ‘effect on the elderly’. In more recent times, the body of research has indicated that it is possible for a freight train slipstream to move a pushchair with its brakes applied.

CCTV image showing the locomotive of train 7A09 passing the wheelchair. Two minutes later, train 7A09, the 07.12 service from Merehead in Somerset to Acton Yard in West London, passed Platform 4 at approximately 45 mph. It comprised a Class 59 locomotive drawing 16 loaded box wagons (types JNA and JYA) followed by 28 loaded hopper wagons (types IIA and JHA). About 13 seconds after the locomotive had passed, the girl’s wheelchair began to move, turning towards the right and then approaching the train. Six seconds later the wheelchair’s right footplate contacted the twentyseventh wagon. This caused the wheelchair to rotate and move parallel to the train. It then struck the twenty-ninth wagon, rubbing along the side of it before being contacted by the leading edge of the thirtieth wagon. The impact propelled the wheelchair along the platform and away from the train. It came to rest about 15 metres away from its starting point. A very frightening experience for the girl, but fortunately she’d had a lucky escape. PHOTOS: GWR

Platform 4 at Twyford station, looking towards Reading. On 7 April 2016, a mother and her disabled daughter had decided to have a day out in London. It’s a 50-minute train ride from Twyford station in Berkshire to London Paddington. They arrived onto Platform 4 at Twyford with time to spare, so the mother carefully parked her daughter’s wheelchair, well behind the yellow line, parallel to the platform edge facing towards London. Her idea was to shield her daughter from the dust generated by passing trains.

CCTV image showing the wheelchair moving towards the train. And (inset) CCTV image showing the wheelchair in contact with the 29th wagon of train 7A09. The accident was witnessed by a member of the GWR ticket office staff and a member of the public, both of whom ran to help. The mother had been looking in the opposite direction and was initially unaware of what had taken place. When she turned round and noticed that the wheelchair had moved she also rushed to the aid of her daughter.

Rail Engineer • April 2017 The girl had a minor injury to her foot and there was some damage to the wheelchair. The mother and daughter subsequently boarded the 10.56 GWR service to Paddington. The GWR staff member who noticed the accident reported it immediately to GWR Control, which then reported it to the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB). The mother and girl were met at Paddington by GWR staff who checked on their welfare and gathered some basic information about the accident. Had the staff member at Twyford not been vigilant, it is doubtful that the subsequent RAIB investigation would have taken place.

RAIB involved Simon Lomax is an Inspector of Rail Accidents, based at the RAIB offices in Derby. He was a key member of the team who worked on the Twyford accident report. “Initially we had very little information - the wheelchair had rolled for reasons unknown,” he said. “We looked at the CCTV recording from Twyford and we had the statement taken by the GWR staff at Paddington. It was tempting to leap to a conclusion that the mother had not applied the wheelchair brakes.” Simon then went on to explain that, even if that were the case, the public needs to be made aware of potential issues caused by train slipstreams. “People will be wary if they see a train approaching at 125 mph, but a freight train moving at 45 mph probably doesn’t give any impression of danger.” As it was, the mother was keen to cooperate with the RAIB and remained adamant that the wheelchair brakes were, in fact, applied. It became apparent that a scientific approach would be needed in order to establish the processes that led to the accident.

Sonic anemometer testing in progress.

Testing Simon explained that the RAIB’s first objective was to measure the force needed to overcome the wheelchair brakes. “That was easy enough, but more challenging was the need to assess the forces that can be generated by train slipstreams.” Professor Chris Baker at the University of Birmingham has undertaken considerable research in the field of vehicle aerodynamics and environmental fluid mechanics. At the start of his career, he had worked in the Aerodynamics Unit of British Rail Research Division in Derby. He offered his expertise to the RAIB enquiry and was invaluable in setting up a test plan. Ultrasonic anemometers, which can measure turbulent air flow in three dimensions, were set up at Twyford to measure the slip stream effects of passing freight trains. Four such devices were deployed, 17 metres apart and 2.4 metres from the platform edge - the same distance from the edge as the wheelchair before it started moving. The experiments were undertaken at night, not only to minimise disruption to the station users, but also because ambient air speed tends to be reduced at that time. A radar speed gun was used to measure the speed of passing trains. Data was recorded from 28 passing trains, some of which had consists similar to 7A09 on 7 April 2016, including the transition from box wagons to hopper wagons.

Slipstream velocity measurements for a train similar to 7A09 (Measurements taken on Platform 2).

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Slipstreams generated by trains are governed by chaos theory. There is an interesting difference, though, between the slip streams generated by passenger trains and freight trains. Passenger trains, being relatively smooth sided, tend to generate less turbulent air movements than freight trains. When a fast moving passenger train passes, there is an initial pressure wave that tries to push objects away. This is followed by a period of reduced and benign slipstream air flow and then finally there’s a turbulent inrush of air behind the train that creates a suction effect towards the track. Freight trains tend to have gaps between vehicles or containers and are generally ‘lumpier’ than passenger trains. As a consequence, numerous vortices or swirls are generated, which can interact with each other in complex and unpredictable ways - sometimes adding in strength and sometimes subtracting.

Probability As Simon explained: “The occurrence at Twyford was a rare event, which makes it more difficult to understand. However, the statistics of slipstream turbulent flow indicate that the longer a freight train is, and the faster it moves, the greater probability there is that vortices can combine in a manner to create a strong wind gust; sufficiently strong to move a wheelchair against its brakes.” At Twyford this appears to have happened at the transition between the box wagons and hopper wagons of train 7A09, just as they were passing the girl in the wheelchair. A useful visual indicator on the CCTV recording was provided by the long blond hair of a lady standing nearby. Of course, moving air must act against an object in order to create a force. The force exerted depends on the object’s surface area perpendicular to the slipstream, its coefficient of drag, the density of the air and the square of the wind velocity. The RAIB investigating team was able to draw on research undertaken by NASA to determine the coefficient of drag for the wheelchair. The wheelchair used by the girl was of a type that can only be moved and braked by a carer. It was fitted with two drum brakes, each operated by its own hand lever. As part of its product acceptance process, this wheelchair design was tested in accordance with the applicable standards. The test report, dated 2004, showed that the wheelchair brake force was 239 N. RAIB testing of the Twyford wheelchair, which was six years old, found that the brake effectiveness was significantly less; probably just 87 N at the time of the accident. Calculations undertaken by the University of Birmingham showed that this would have been insufficient to resist the peak aerodynamic forces acting upon the wheelchair.

The wheelchair involved in the accident. (Inset) The wheelchair brake mechanism.

To makes matters worse, as the wheelchair approached the platform edge, the slipstream forces acting on it would have increased. At 1.2 metres from the platform edge - the position of the yellow line on Platform 4 - it was calculated that the slipstream force would have increased by around 2.7 times.

Accident factors Ultimately, it was deduced by the RAIB investigators that three factors came together to cause the Twyford accident. The first was the effectiveness or otherwise of the wheelchair brakes. Investigation found that the braking effect on one side of the wheelchair was weaker than the other, which explains why it veered towards the train. The second factor was the turbulent slipstream generated at the area of the change from box wagons to the taller hopper wagons. The third was the ambient wind speed and direction. Data from three local weather stations confirmed that it was blowing at 2-3 metres per second in broadly the same direction as the train movement. The University of Birmingham was able to recreate these factors and concluded that it was ‘plausible’ that the combined wind effects overcame the wheelchair brakes.

Surprising Set up in 2005, the RAIB independently investigates accidents to improve railway safety, and inform the industry and the public. Whether the wheelchair brakes had been on or off, the RAIB would still have needed to produce recommendations. That the wheelchair brakes could be overcome was however a key realisation. A previous RAIB accident report, ‘Accidents at Southend Central and Whyteleafe Stations’, had looked at incidents of wheelchairs and pushchairs rolling over platform edges. In those accidents, the cause was gravity and platforms that sloped towards the railway, but the resulting recommendations were still about how the railway assesses the risks to vulnerable users of stations. The railway does of course have a duty of care to all station users, yet in carrying out risk assessments on stations it seems that the potential effects of train slipstreams have not been properly appreciated. Simon expanded on this: “The railway has lost sight of the risks from train aerodynamics. That a freight train at 45 mph can generate a slipstream that is worse than that of a passenger train travelling at twice the speed has not been understood. There is therefore a need to raise the consciousness of station operators and duty holders to train slipstream effects.”

Rail Engineer • April 2017 Unaware The mother involved at Twyford was unaware that an accident like this could happen, and was very clear that she didn’t want anything like this to happen to anyone else. Fortunately, the accident did not result in serious injury, but it could have been much worse. Indeed, the girl was very lucky to survive her encounter with the moving freight train. No aerodynamic risk assessment had been carried out at Twyford Platform 4, because it wasn’t required under Railway Group Standard GI/RT7016 ‘Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains’ Issue 5 March 2014. That standard only requires such an assessment if passenger trains pass at speeds greater than 100 mph, or freight trains at more than 60 mph. The maximum speeds at Platform 4 are 90 mph and 60 mph respectively, so there was no formal need to mitigate the risks from passing trains. The wheelchair was positioned behind the yellow line by 1.2 metres, so it’s now clear that this measure alone does not ensure safety. The mother was unaware of the hazard presented by the slipstream of passing trains, so she didn’t take any additional precautions. In any case, the RAIB investigation found that there was a lack of clarity about what specific actions should be taken by station operators and wheelchair users to minimise the risk.

through station platforms would be unacceptable. Rather, the recommendations need to be appropriate and proportionate and, in this, the RAIB can claim that 97 per cent of its recommendations lead to substantive actions being taken. The published Twyford accident report recommends that the railway industry should make members of the public aware as quickly as possible of the potential hazard from train slipstreams and of the need to keep hold of pushchairs and wheelchairs. It calls upon the Rail Delivery Group to work in consultation with passenger groups to seek ways of providing advance information (published advice leaflets) and real time information (announcements and customer information displays). It has also called upon the Railway Safety Standards Board (RSSB) to work with the rail industry to identify consistent measures that can be taken to ensure the safety of wheelchairs and pushchairs from train slipstreams. Since the incident at Twyford, GWR has started a project to carry out aerodynamic risk assessments for all its station platforms and it will review how it warns station users of the approach of passing trains. The RSSB has started a process to amend Railway Group Standard GI/ RT70016 to make it mandatory for aerodynamic risk assessments to be undertaken when freight trains pass platforms at 45 mph or greater.

Changes The RAIB is not an enforcement organisation. It was set up to provide safety learning and it falls upon others to act upon its recommendations. Those recommendations are crafted very carefully. After all, a recommendation that can’t be implemented has little value. For instance, a blanket low speed limit on freight trains passing

Freight train going through Twyford station and (inset) Warning signs which are on platforms 2 and 3.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

CLIVE KESSELL

The Gate Line

Throughput Challenge

ail Engineer often reports on capacity constraints, not just on the number and length of trains but on station capacity and the number of travellers that pass through. A forthcoming challenge, as passenger numbers increase, will be how to get people through ticket barriers in the minimum possible time. Gate line barriers are now a norm at all but the most rural stations in the UK, and this is the situation in many other developed countries. Experience showed that open-access stations led to a rapid increase in fraudulent travel, with on-train ticket checks only recovering a small percentage of the lost revenue, and thus gate free stations are not an option in the foreseeable future. The regular commuter with an electronically encoded ticket or a smart bank card knows precisely how to get through a barrier line, but the occasional traveller is often bemused by what has to be done and a sense of impatience quickly arises if one is held up by a ‘ditherer’ who searches in wallet or pockets for the correct card or piece of paper. At main line stations, where travellers often have printed-off paper tickets as part of an advance fare promotion, the gates do not always recognise the bar code being scanned, with inevitable delay to other passengers as queues quickly form. The advent of paperless tickets further complicates the problem if an authority on a smart phone is proffered up with a fair chance of this not being recognised. So what can be done to sort out this potentially growing situation? The RSSB has initiated a project with industry to try and find a solution that will help regular travellers in the short term and the general travelling public as a longer-term objective.

The organisations involved With RSSB as the client, two companies are co-operating to create a walk-through system at gate lines using ticketless technology and the latest smartphone applications. The first of these is ByteToken, an Edinburgh subsidiary of New Yorkbased Bytemark Inc. The company has a recognised track record in mobile ticketing solutions and has developed fare inspection systems for handheld, vehicle and point of sale applications in the general business of transport management. It has a patented product for visually validated virtual tickets (V3), incorporating a 2D bar code ticket which dynamically changes every few minutes to guard against fraud, and an NFC (Near Field Communication) solution that are all downloaded to a smartphone in a comprehensive ticketing app. The system works as a multi-modal, multi-operator ticket provider that is compatible with iOS, Android and Windows platforms. Secondly is the Thales Revenue Collection Systems group, based in France near to Paris and part of the wider Thales organisation. It has progressed ticketing systems worldwide under the banner of ‘TRANSCITYTM’, aiming to provide easy door-to-door travel known as ‘my seamless travel’. It recognises that ticketing needs to be aligned with open system technology that allows third party integration. The concept of either a ‘Walk In, Walk Out’ area around gated barrier lines or a ‘Be In, Be Out’ detection zone in vehicles is all part of the development of innovative ticketing technologies.

KeyPass objectives To get people through gates more quickly, and thus stop queues building up, requires a logical combination of three different technologies. These are: »» Smartphone Apps with a valid ticket or account information encoded; »» Smart Gates that can react to the information received and only open when this is correct; »» A fusion of Bluetooth data and a 3D sensor to detect and link the correct person to the individual gate. (As an incidental piece of information, were readers aware that the name Bluetooth originates from an ancient Danish King?) The aim is to remove physical user interaction with the gates such that passengers with valid tickets just walk through.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

WALK THROUGH BLUETOOTH TICKETING

alex@bytetoken.com EDINBURGH

+44 (0)797 314 5472

NEW YORK

SYDNEY

www.bytetoken.com

TORONTO

BANGALORE

Rail Engineer • April 2017

With the continuous growth in passenger travel, getting the required throughput either means increasing the number of gates, which at some stations is not possible because of space constraints, or the use of clever technology. It is this latter that ByteToken’s KeyPass mobile solution is all about.

The development so far The individual technologies all exist, so it might be thought that merging them would be a simple task. However, this is not the case. Some of the challenges are: »» The location system has to establish who has a mobile device in the vicinity of the gate and distinguish these from all other travellers; »» The smartphone ‘ticket’ has to have time to be validated and for the gate to open without the person needing to alter his/her approach speed; »» The Bluetooth LE system is noisy and the received signal strength can fluctuate widely due to reflections and perturbations; »» The smart ticket must not read over to an adjacent gate; »» The smart ticket has to be reliably read no matter where it is located on a person; »» Due consideration must be given to fraud opportunities and people trying to get through gates without a valid ticket. The latest developments were recently demonstrated at Thales’ Crawley premises to an invited gathering of TOC revenue management and other interested parties. One finding is that the system operates best when the ticket holder approaches the gate head on. Anyone coming in at an angle may not be correctly detected. Thus, a short channelling walkway is currently recommended to ensure optimum performance. The Bluetooth link is probably the most challenging element. This shortrange wireless application, most familiar to people as a means of handsfree communication to a mobile phone in a car, has a typical range of five to seven metres. This is far too much for a ticket gate application where a range of under a metre is needed. A combination of specially developed software from both ByteToken and Thales, that enhances the precision of the Bluetooth location working in tandem with a 3D camera, provides the necessary accurate passenger tracking. The Bluetooth system must also be able to detect the precise location of the ticket holder. To do this, six beacons are required, two directly over the gate on a column which also has an illuminated sign to indicate that the gate is active and four on the approach walk. Software has been written to remove noisy data from the system and the 3D camera tracks passengers walking to the gate. The one-second response time for normal Bluetooth operation has had to be reduced to 50-100ms.

Demonstrating the system The Crawley room had a full-sized model of the system. Personnel equipped with an activated smart phone walked through at various speeds with the phone on different parts of their body. Even someone running was able to activate the gate just in time. Two people in close convoy, one with an activated phone, the other without could get through the barrier but the second person was detected and an alarm signal sounded. Under normal operation, the gate will open for around 10 seconds before reclosing to protect against anyone on the slow side having the gate begin to close on them. This was demonstrated and, if a gate detects an obstruction, the alarm will sound and it will immediately re-open. Any passengers with heavy luggage or a child’s pushchair should get through in time. The barriers can work in both directions, thus catering for morning and evening commuter flows. The exit direction is likely to be the most challenging to get right as a train with a thousand passengers all disgorging at once will be the time when the throughput rate is greatest.

Next steps Before the barrier line can go into production, more development is needed in some areas. These include: »» A much greater liaison with station operators on their precise requirements; »» Refining the passenger tracking system and the associated channelling methods; »» How to install at stations in a seamless way; »» How to deploy multiple gates without cross-reading between gates; »» Development of a wide gate for special needs travellers; »» Whether to have a ‘first class’ gate to give priority access; »» Whether to have a gate(s) reserved for season ticket holders. Gates can be either swing or retract, according to what is the norm at that station. As the driving force behind the idea is to speed up the flow of regular travellers, who will quickly become familiar with the system and appreciate the benefit it can bring, it is recognised that the best initial implementation of this technology would be its deployment in a ‘Fast Track’ lane. A pilot station will be identified in the near future where a limited deployment can take place for a defined user base. It must be remembered that this is all about throughput optimisation and not the detection of fraud, although the latter has to be part of the design. Full marks to RSSB for identifying the future constraint and doing something about it before it becomes a real problem. Thanks to the ByteToken and Thales staff for explaining the project and its hardware.

The power of two

Our parent companies are leading railway infrastructure specialists. Together we continue to invest in cutting edge on-track machines which improve safety, reliability and efficiency.

0141 212 5648

info@sbrail.com

SB Rail

sbrail.com

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Tandem

CHRIS PARKER

CHRIS TUCKER

Tamping

fter the success at Belford last year, where newly relaid switches and crossings (S&C) were handed back at 125 mph line speed using 928001, a Plasser & Theurer Unimat 09-4x4/4S Dynamic Tamper, Swietelsky/Babcock Rail (SBR) has continued its innovative collaboration with the S&C North Alliance to deliver another 125mph handback of an S&C renewal, this one at Sandy on the East Coast main line. This next stage involved the use of two 09-4x4/4S Dynamic Tampers in tandem in order to tamp two crossovers, one between Up Fast and Up Slow during week 45 and the other between Down Fast and Down Slow in week 46. Due to the long bearers in S&C, there is a need for tandem lifting to achieve optimal track quality. In this procedure, as the terminology suggests, both S&C units are lifted at once, using one tamper on each line. In this way, the whole length of any through bearer is lifted to the correct degree at the same time, obviating the risk of distorting the bearers or leaving them unevenly supported after the tamping is done. Tandem lifting is now a tried and tested procedure in the UK. However, using a high output satellite machine with Dynamic Track Stabilisation in tandem is believed to be a world first.

Why parallel tamp? Parallel tamping ensures an even force is applied across S&C during the lifting cycle. Single machine tamping on crossovers can lead to excessive load on the clips, causing them to deform as the bearers are not lifted properly. Single line tamping can also leave voids under bearers, where ballast consolidation is most needed. And, of course, using two tampers means that switch and crossing layouts can be tamped more rapidly as well as to a higher quality.

928001’s sister machine, 74002, was introduced to the UK infrastructure in Dec 2017 and arrangements were made with LNE planners to stable the machines together at Welwyn Garden City for training and commissioning ready for the tandem lift/DTS in week 44. Work carried out on the machines at Welwyn Garden City included carrying out modifications including hard wiring, and the fitment of the Tandem Lead to connect the machines during the tandem lift. Additional cameras were installed as were program updates to Plasser & Theurer’s PIC control system. This stateof-the-art microcontroller system gives the Plasser engineers remote access to rewrite the programmable logic controller (PLC) of each tamper, making the machines future-proof for

further upgrades and reducing the need for additional hard wiring. As part of the upgrade, an additional section of the working-cab screen for tandem tamping was developed by SBR and Plasser. Experience from previous tandem works, using 08-4x4 machines in the fleet, had shown that the process can be slowed down significantly due to miscommunication between the crewmembers involved. SBR and Plasser have therefore developed an indication system which now gives the master machine operator a visual ‘confirmation’ when all operators are ready to complete or finish the work cycle, reducing the verbal communication needed. This, coupled with the high output of the machines, now makes for a much more efficient process in comparison with conventional S&C machines in the UK. Simulation runs were carried out and a method was developed between the trainers and operators. Some further testing was carried out for a future upgrade for tandem drive, reducing site entry and exit times.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Sandy Over a period of two weekends, the machines were deployed to assist S&C North Alliance with a major upgrade of a set of switch and crossings at Sandy. The crossover rails were lifted synchronously at the through bearers by the two machines acting in tandem, communicating via the interconnecting cable. Long bearers that didn’t run through both tracks were managed using the third-point lifting arms of the machines, which lift the rails so that the fastenings are not subjected to excessive stresses and the bearers are correctly aligned.

Why Tandem DTS? During conventional S&C renewals, the track is handed back at a reduced speed (TSR or Temporary Speed Restriction) due to a reduction in the lateral stability of the track. That is caused by the disturbance that lifting and tamping inevitably inflicts upon the ballast. Track quality and stability relies on the track structure and ballast and, traditionally, a TSR was kept in place until it was judged that enough traffic had passed to re-consolidate the ballast by means of the vibration caused by the passage of trains. Dynamic Track Stabilisation (DTS) was developed to provide the means to re-consolidate the ballast artificially, immediately after tamping or other ballast disturbance. It can simulate over 140,000 tonnes of passing traffic, rapidly creating a greater uniformity of stone consolidation. By doing this, it is possible to reopen track safely to traffic immediately afterwards with a much higher TSR, or even with no TSR at all. Originally, separate DTS machines were used that followed after a tamper, consolidating the track that had been tamped by one or more passes through the site to deliver the desired effect. The machines had trolleys that were lowered onto the two rails. They had roller clamps that allowed the trolleys to roll along the track whilst applying both horizontal and vertical loads to the rails. The machine applied both a vertical pre-load to the track and, at the same time, a vibratory horizontal and vertical shaking effect. This last was achieved by the use of rapidly rotating eccentric weights attached to the trolleys. The result was rapid consolidation of the ballast as already described.

The 09-4x4/4S tamper is itself fitted with DTS units which operate in a similar manner to those of the conventional separate machines. They allow the tamper to stabilise the track as it progresses, saving time by comparison with the use of a separate machine. In a further refinement, unique to Plasser machines, these tampers can apply variable DTS parameters ‘intelligently’, according to the needs of each increment of the track as they progress. This variation in the DTS effect is achieved by variable imbalance of the rotating flywheel that causes variation in the intensity of the shaking imparted to the track. The downward pressure of the unit on the track to locate the lifted sleepers into the ballast bed is also varied appropriately in synchrony. The combined effect causes flow of the ballast into a more stable position than was left after the actual tamping, whilst causing minimal change to the corrected track geometry left by the machine’s tamping bank. The latest intelligent DTS units, as fitted to SBR’s 09-4x4, can now be stopped and started or varied in intensity during S&C treatment. Therefore, the machine doesn’t need to carry out additional passes through the site, saving valuable time during tight possessions. The variable DTS technique is applied intelligently, for example to remove minor high spots on a rail by applying higher intensity directly on the high points and reduced intensity in between them. It can also be used to avoid re-treating a rail during tandem working when, for example, the machines will sometimes travel over the same rail more than once whilst tamping the whole of a crossover. The use of DTS technology is mandatory on high speed track in Europe and ensures the removal of ballast bed inconsistencies, increasing linear and longitudinal integrity after tamping for a longer maintenance interval between tamps, usually extended by around 30 per cent. Combined with the possibility of re-opening the railway at full speed immediately after renewal, this must be a winning formula! Chris Tucker is a trainer and assessor at SB Rail.

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Using the third-point lifting arm prevents exposing the rail fastenings to excessive load.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

CHRIS PARKER

Impressive new rail grinders

IDC Tuxford, Network Rail’s rail innovation and development centre at High Marnham, is where new on-track machines and heavy plant are put through their paces and certified for operation on the national network. Rail Engineer was there recently (issue 148, February 2017) to look at Network Rail’s new ballast cleaning train. Now this reporter has been invited back for an exclusive viewing of a Loram C4400-series rail grinder, the first of a fleet of three machines that Network Rail has ordered from American rail grinding specialists ‘Loram Maintenance of Way’, based in Minneapolis. Compared with the high output ballast system that was on show last time, C44-01 is relatively small, consisting of only four cars, but what it lacks in length it makes up in complexity and sophistication.

Removing RCF First, let’s consider why Network Rail needs such a fleet of grinding trains. Those with a knowledge of recent rail history in the UK will, unfortunately, recall the Hatfield crash, the sad loss of life it caused and the chaos which followed. This led to the demise of Railtrack and its replacement by Network Rail. Not surprisingly, this accident was investigated very thoroughly, and it was found that the rail failure that derailed the train had arisen because of rolling contact fatigue (RCF) cracks in the rail. RCF damage that appeared similar was found in many places all over the rail network, and needed

to be rectified quickly. Clearly, there was also an urgent need to prevent the growth of similar rail cracks in the future. Much of the cracked rail that was identified was replaced by re-railing, but it was simply not practical or economic to replace all of it. Neither would it have been feasible, for practical and economic reasons, to control the problem in the future by re-railing alone. Some other measure was required. Looking at developments elsewhere in the world, one option used by other railways was rail grinding. This technique had been used in the UK, in a relatively limited way, for other reasons, such as the removal of rail corrugations or to generate surface roughness to improve adhesion. However, it had not been used to control the growth of cracks such as the RCF damage. Rail grinding can be carried out using machines controlled by manual operators, but the scale of the operation that was now required meant that special rail vehicles or trains were sourced. These are fitted with banks of grinding heads, each angled differently so that, between them, they leave the correct profile on the ground rail head. Because rail grinding creates large volumes of dust, a mix of steel and abrasive particles, and since it generates high temperatures (250ºC), special measures are needed. These include dust collection and disposal systems, spark arrestor devices and

water spray mechanisms that can be used to extinguish any lineside fires that may be ignited. Grinding is noisy, so noise attenuation measures are also very necessary. Research into the RCF damage mechanism confirmed that the dangerous cracks could be controlled by periodically grinding off the layer of cracked steel from the running surface of the rail, maintaining a small gap between the gauge corner and wheel, thus preventing cracks from reaching a depth that could lead to rail failure. Other aspects of the research indicated that a major contributor to the initiation and growth of RCF cracks was a mismatch between the profiles of the rail head and the wheel profiles of the trains running on it. Rail grinding was known to be an effective means of reprofiling the rail head, to return it to the right shape to work well with the wheel profiles of the trains. Given appropriate wheel profile management by train operators, this would ensure a huge reduction in the incidence of RCF damage. It would not eliminate it all, because there are other causes besides the profile issue, but that which did still occur would be safely controlled by properly managed rail grinding. Rail grinding trains were available at this time, and Railtrack, followed by Network Rail, availed themselves of these very successfully. An indication of how successful the latter’s rail management has been is given by the history of rail failure statistics. Around the time of the Hatfield crash, rail breaks on the national network were averaging 1000 per year. Current figures are typically around 100 and, more often than not, these are due to failure of the foot of the rail and not the head. Not all of this improvement is due to rail grinding, but a high proportion must be credited to it.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Fleet additions

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Currently, Network Rail has a significant fleet of rail grinding trains - five switch & crossing grinding trains, three trains that carry out preventive rail grinding cyclically, and three that are sent out to specific, targeted sites in response to an identified need. Preventive grinding, the main defence against RCF, is planned on a two-yearly cycle of regular treatment and is often carried out in traffic, without requiring any possession. However, the existing trains are getting old, most can travel in traffic at only 50mph, and are no longer competitive in terms of their rates of production. Consequently, some years ago, Network Rail began planning to renew part of the fleet with three modern trains. This resulted in a CP5 business plan item to develop, procure and bring these into use. CRG-01, the first of these Loram rail grinders that Rail Engineer saw under test at Tuxford, is a four-car consist, one of two such which form part of the order with Loram. Both of these are in the UK already, the second being CRG-02 which, at the time of our visit, was at Derby undergoing checks. The third train, a seven-car variant (PLG-01), is currently under construction in the USA. The four-car units have two grinding cars, each of which carries two grinding ‘buggies’ containing four grinding stones per rail, so that there are a total of 16 stones per rail on each car, or 32 in all.

There are control/driving cars at each end of the train, both fitted with air-cooled axle-mounted AC traction motors. One driving car carries the propulsion power pack, while the other has welfare and workshop facilities, including messing, toilet and washing facilities, and lockers for the crew’s gear. Cummings tier 4 diesel engines driving threephase AC generators provide 480V power, and the train also has two Atlas Copco air compressors. Large water tanks provide for the fire suppression equipment, and the volume of water available will often be the limiting factor in determining how much work a train can

Reduce Costs The rail industry is changing, fast. The need to improve efficiency and reliability, whilst minimising disruption and costs has never been greater. Innovative solutions are needed. Whether it’s a temporary, semi-permanent or permanent access point, our customers can install a 10.8m RRAP in less than 90 minutes, reducing possession times and costs. Rosehill Rail – Setting New Standards For more information, or to enquire about training, please call the Rosehill Rail sales team on +44 (0)1422 317 473, or email info@rosehillrail.com

9 - 11 May 2017, Stand N31, NEC Birmingham - UK 30 May - 1 June 2017, Stand N/214 Münster - Germany

Road Crossings

Road Rail Access

Pedestrian Crossings

Anti-Trespass

complete in a shift. However, the capacity on these machines is double what was previously available. Grinding cannot continue once the water has been used if there is any risk of lineside fires. Clever technology enhances the capabilities of the trains. The main chassis frames include hollow, rectangular longitudinal members. Some of these are used as ducts for the dust suppression system, while others carry cooling air to the traction engines. The train’s control system measures the rails using laser scanners to evaluate the rail profiles and the position and width of the running bands, whilst an eddy current crack detection system

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Rail Engineer • April 2017

measures any RCF cracks present. Using that information, the optimum grinding profile outputs can be determined automatically. The trains are designed to reduce, to the absolute minimum, the requirement for anyone to go out onto the track. For example, each of the grinding buggies has a sensor at each corner that detects that the buggy is correctly sat on the rail when it is lowered. The fire suppression equipment, mounted on each grinding car and at either end of the train, is operated remotely from the control cabs, and there are CCTV cameras to provide the driver and controllers with images of the surroundings of the train. That said, at each end of the train there is a fire hose that can be brought into use if it becomes necessary for a member of the team to go onto the lineside to control a fire in person.

Improved performance The four-car trains can remove up to 0.5mm of steel from the railheads at a pass, though it will not often be necessary to remove so much in normal use. As the seven-car train will have a total of 64 stones in its four grinding cars, it will have twice that capacity, but is more likely to use this to permit it to travel at greater speed whilst removing a given depth of steel than could the smaller units. All of the trains are designed to operate safely on electrified lines, whether overhead or third rail. They will have a higher production rate than the existing trains, and will be able to travel in traffic at 70mph, enabling them to transit from location to location significantly faster than the existing units and resulting in significantly higher availability.

However, the increase in transit speed is a significant issue for Loram and the Network Rail project team, led by Leevan Finney. The rules about train braking are much more demanding and it is quite tricky to produce a braking system which meets the requirements for a 70mph transit speed whilst still being able to provide the necessary fine speed control at the low speeds necessary for the grinding operation. Chris Lidberg, Loram’s project engineer, and his colleagues Todd Hanks and Jeff Erickson, were dealing ably with the challenges of testing out the braking and other systems. Whilst Rail Engineer was on site, the first 40mph braking test was successfully achieved. Each train will be expected to operate 290 shifts per year with only routine servicing, such as the replacement of grinding stones, removal of collected dust and the like. There will be only one major maintenance overhaul for larger tasks. The trains are managed by Colas Rail under a separate contract with Network Rail. Jim Reid, rail grinding delivery manager, explained that the crews will be fully trained to maintain and repair their trains, up to and including being able to remove one of the big diesel engines, or even a buggy, and replace it with a new one should that ever be necessary.

Incidentally, the trains also have provision for control from track level, using a hand held remotecontrol unit that can be plugged into the side of a grinding car between the two grinding buggies. This allows movement of the grinding equipment for cleaning, to check its operation or to facilitate changing worn stones. All in all, these new trains should well justify their cost by helping to ensure the safety of the network more efficiently, with reduced noise and increased service life, whilst causing less disruption to traffic. The first of the new units should be ready to enter service in June 2017. Network Certification Body (NCB), the notified body and designated body for the project, is also providing plant assessment body certification. Daniel O’Brien, NCB lead assessor on the project said: “We have been working closely with Loram throughout the design, manufacturing and testing phases of the project; and despite the main production facility being in Minnesota, USA, we have developed an excellent working relationship with the production team.” NCB has assessed all aspects of the vehicle ranging from structural integrity to on-board safety systems, involving a wide range of TSIs, Euronorms, railway industry standards and railway group standards. NCB has already issued the ISV (intermediate statement of verification) certification to support dynamic testing, which has enabled type tests such as brake testing and ride characteristic testing to be conducted to support final certification.

net-cert.co.uk

We’ll get you on track You’ve done all the hard work of identifying the standards and safety risks that apply to your vehicle. You’re now looking for the independent assurance so that you’re ready to roll. Look no further than NCB. We have the expertise to work on many types of rail vehicles including passenger rolling stock, locomotives, freight wagons, On-Track Plant and On-Track Machines. Whether you’re a manufacturer, owner or operator, we have the ability to deliver conformance certification to meet your needs. From engineering modifications through to new build, we’ve got you covered - working as: a Notified Body and Designated Body a Plant Assessment Body an Assessment Body under the Common Safety Method an Entities in Charge of Maintenance Certification Body Our knowledge of the processes and our connections throughout the railway industry give us the unparalleled ability to provide assurance and certification solutions that work for you.

Get in touch to discuss how we can help you Email: ncbenquiries@networkrail.co.uk

*Proud to certify Rail Grinding Machines

Rail Engineer • April 2017

“How many railway technicians does it take to change a light bulb?”

his may sound like one of those silly quiz questions, but it is actually quite a serious one. And the answer can vary tremendously depending on the location of the light bulb. In a station, where a ladder can safely be used, the answer may be two. If a scaffold tower is required, it may be three two constructing the scaffolding tower and one on top. At Westminster Underground station, where rope access is required, it could be more than that - and on highly skilled pay rates as well. On a platform, lampposts have to be unlocked and rotated to the ground. In car parks, much the same except the lampposts can be much taller, and heavier. Then there is the train itself. It could have to be returned to a depot overnight rather than merely being stabled somewhere. If it’s a signal light, a van with two or three people gets sent out and that’s the last anyone will see of them for half a day. It’s all expensive and time consuming. Of course, LEDs have had a major impact. Now lamp life is greatly extended, saving the expense of changing those relatively cheap bulbs. But, to get the benefit, the entire fitting has to be changed to an LED head - another expense and one which can shut the railway during the changeover process. So what’s needed is the best of both worlds. When a bulb blows, the usual steps are taken to replace it, but with an LED equivalent. Now lamp life is extended, power consumption is also cut, and without the time and expense of changing the fitting. Utopia?

Not at all. Products from the Goodlight™ LED lighting range from LED Eco Lights have now been approved for use across Transport for London’s network in both Section 12 (underground facilities) and non-Section 12 areas, such as the tube, rail and bus stations, depots and bus shelters. The two approved products are Goodlight T8 LED tubes, which are mandated for use where LED tubes are required in all non-section 12 areas, and Goodlight G360 LED SON replacements which can be used anywhere on the network.

Tubes Available in warm, daylight and natural colours, the Goodlight T8 LED tubes are specifically designed for retrofitting into existing fittings. Available in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8-foot lengths, the new LED tubes operate independently of external control gear. With translucent lens covers, they look just like fluorescent tubes and, once installed, deliver a bright, even light spread with no shadowing. Specified output of 105Lm/W leads to direct energy savings up to 75 per cent. Lighting output ranges from 10W, with the 2-foot T8 tube, up to 35W for the 8-foot model. Their operational rating of 50,000 hours equates to a lifetime of approximately 20 years at seven hours a day, 11 years at 12 hours a day, and five years or more at 24 hours a day. The new LED tubes can even do things the traditional fluorescent can’t. The ‘emergency’ option, which comprises a compact, slim-line battery/driver module, will power the tube for up to three hours - removing the need for a secondary emergency lighting system.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

SON The Goodlight G360 LED SON lamp range has been designed to provide retrofit LED replacements for standard E27 and E40 SON and metal halide lamps usually associated with industrial lighting applications in high and low bay lighting, or for exteriors in bollards and street lighting. The range pioneers MagLev Fan Technology (a patented design), plus a unique new heat sink design, to draw away waste heat. This unique combination provides inimitable new design with performance; delivering a long, unrivalled lifespan allowing the lamp to operate at temperatures beyond 70°C. Both lamps have a lifetime of 50,000 hours or eleven years of use at twelve hours per day, deliver efficiencies of up to 80 per cent and are covered by a comprehensive five-year warranty. In addition, they are almost silent in operation, under 0.5dB.

Huge savings Commenting on the TfL approval, project director Dr Leon Smith said: “The network is transitioning to much greater use of LED lighting, partly because of its energy efficiency, but mostly due to the huge savings in maintenance and labour costs more advanced technologies allow. This reflects our new approach to procurement, taking a long term view and looking at the whole life-cycle costs for all the products we install across the network.” He continued, “We rigorously assessed products from many world leading lighting suppliers and as a result of this process, we are delighted to confirm that two Goodlight LED products met our high standards; products that we will be actively using to secure savings.”

Philip Edgecombe, commercial director of LED Eco Lights, commented: “We are delighted that our products have met with the quality and performance criteria specified by the London Underground and Transport for London. “As an organisation, TfL manage, maintain and operate in lighting critical environments, servicing millions of passengers annually. No one understands lighting better than they do. Their commitment to health and safety excellence is exceptional and the testing procedures they carry out are unrivalled. “We are proud that they have selected Goodlight LED lighting products for use on their network, and look forward to supporting their lighting strategy.”

Rail Engineer • April 2017

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

Ilkeston How to build a station T

in 10 months

he Derbyshire town of Ilkeston, population 38,640, has been tagged with the title of “England’s largest town on a passenger railway line without a railway station”. It’s predecessor, Corby (pop. 61,300) received its station in 2009. At one time, however, Ilkeston was almost a railway town with no fewer than three stations. Ilkeston Junction, or more properly ‘Ilkeston Junction and Cossall’ was opened by the Midland Railway in 1847. At that time it was at the edge of the town on the Erewash Valley line, the line that extends the Midland main line north from Trent Junction and runs between Nottingham and Chesterfield on its way to Sheffield. From Ilkeston Junction, a short branch ran in to Ilkeston Town. Ilkeston North, on the other hand, was opened by the Great Northern in 1878 as part of its Derbyshire and Staffordshire Extension, immediately to the west of Bennerley Viaduct. However, everything came to an end with the decline of the railways. Ilkeston Town closed to passengers in 1950 and to freight as well in 1960, Ilkeston North closed in 1964 and Ilkeston Junction in 1967. And so Ilkeston passed into the railway wilderness. Ilkeston Town was demolished and a Tesco supermarket built on the site while Ilkeston North was replaced by a police station. Ilkeston Junction became a scrapyard and wasteland with Cossall Colliery alongside. All that was retained was the footbridge, the top deck of which was effectively the pavement alongside the road overbridge on Coronation Road as that was too narrow to have a dedicated footpath.

Station design Fast forward to 2013, and Derbyshire County Council saw the potential for benefits in building a new station in Ilkeston. It put together a business case that helped the case for creating the Government’s New Stations Fund and, ultimately, a funding offer. A new station on the site of the old Ilkeston Junction station could cut commuter times into Nottingham, open up job opportunities along the line for people living in the town and help boost the town’s economy. Since this was a mining area, site investigation followed which resulted in the discovery of that rare species – the Great Crested Newt. Delays occurred while the site was cleared of these pesky amphibians. In fact, it had to be cleared twice, a total of 171 newts being removed at a cost to Derbyshire County Council of £74,120 (that’s £433 per newt!). There were also flooding concerns - the area is a flood plain for the River Erewash – and the station had to be de-scoped to avoid work in the flood plain.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

The mine workings beneath the platform and bridge structures needed to be stabilised prior to their installation. Bores were drilled at three-metre centres and 24 metres deep. However, once all of the preliminary works (and delays) were completed and the funding was in place (£2.26 million from Derbyshire County Council, £6.674 million from New Stations Fund and £1 million contributed by Nottingham Housing Market Area), work could start. The construction team from Galliford Try arrived on site on Monday 4 April 2016. There was very little to see, just a derelict scrapyard with a gate across the road, but that road was Station Street, so there was a good chance they were in the right place. The design was undertaken by AECOM on behalf of Derbyshire County Council. It is for an unmanned station with two four-car platforms, 100 metres long, one each side of the twin track railway. A new steel

footbridge, with DDA-compliant ramps for wheelchair users, replaces the existing bridge which dated back to the old Ilkeston Junction station and has two tie-in spans to the footway on Coronation Road. There is actually a third track – a bi-directional Slow line, used solely for freight, to the east of the two main line tracks. This would curve around the back of the new station and not have a platform face. The railway runs approximately north-south. The design calls for a dropping-off point, disabled car park and taxi rank on the west side, accessed from Station Street, and a longer-term car park on the eastern side with a simple connection out towards the A610. Originally, this main car park was planned to stretch right down to the trackside fence, but concerns about the stability of the ground, coupled with the need to maintain the flood plain by providing extra flood storage volume to counter the station’s land take, reduced its size “significantly”, to a capacity of 90 vehicles.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Work under way Derbyshire County Council engaged Network rail to procure the project and oversee its installation. Galliford Try’s contract with Network Rail to build the station was awarded as part of its framework agreement for building projects in the Central Region East Midlands route, awarded to recent acquisition Miller Construction in 2014. The first job, apart from clearing the site, was muck shifting to create the two car parks and the storage ponds. 3,000 tonnes from the western drop-off point site and 6-7,000 tonnes from the main eastern car park, undertaken by civils subcontractor Oakfield Construction. The old footbridge, the last vestige of the original station, came down. This would also remove the footpath alongside the road bridge on Coronation Road – it would be closed for 22 weeks. Piling followed. Universal Piling and Construction (UPAC) installed one hundred and twenty 350mm diameter CFA (continuous flight auger) piles 13 metres long for the platforms and one hundred and thirty-three 450mm diameter CFA piles, 11 metres long, for the new footbridge. Some of the work was carried out at night during nine-hour weekend possessions and six-hour midweek ones. The two tracks were also slewed and raised slightly, straightening them out ready for the new station. Once the piles were in place, 106 of the platform piles were topped with square-section concrete caps. These would form the base for the beams for the modular concrete platform, aimed at maintaining as much flood storage capacity as possible. Similarly, 34 pile caps formed the base for the new steel fabricated footbridge. This arrived in sections to be lifted into place. Due to the constricted site, this process had to be carefully managed. A 500-tonne crane from Baldwins lifted the main span over the passenger lines at night during one of the weekend possessions and with a complete road closure. On a second weekend, a 350-tonne crane hoisted into position the section that would cross the Slow line. Crawler cranes, positioned in the 10-foot between the Up Fast line and the Slow, and another in the east car park, erected the access ramps while a 40-tonne crane in the car park positioned the tie-in spans. The platform beams and slabs were installed using 21-tonne excavators positioned behind the platforms. The rearward slabs could be installed during daytime working, but the beams and slabs on the ‘front’ halves of the platforms, nearest to the live railway, had to be positioned during a night-time possessions/line blocks. Galliford Try’s project manager Matt Rippin explained that, once the concrete slabs for the platforms were in place, a layer of tarmac was added to finish the whole thing off and retain the copers and tactile strip (the ‘bobbles’ that mark the safe distance from the platform edge for the benefit of the sight-impaired). Fit out of the platforms, the mechanical and electrical works, LED lighting, CCTV and ticket machines, was undertaken by Railway Electrical Services (RES).

Out in the car parks, tarmac was laid, earth banks (soon to be grassy banks) were sculpted, trees were planted, flood relief ponds were dug and drainage and soak-aways installed. Just ten months after work commenced, on 6 February 2017, the station was substantially complete. Two months of snagging, testing and evaluation by Ricardo Rail and ORR approval would follow before the actual opening of the station to train services on 2 April 2017 – almost exactly a year after construction started.

Reaction Derbyshire County Council is very pleased with its new station. Councillor Dean Collins, the council’s cabinet member for highways, transport and infrastructure, sees two roles for it. “Ilkeston station will be a great boost to the area,” he said. “It will mean much quicker commuting times (for residents who travel to Sheffield and Nottingham for work) and it will improve connectivity to nearby major towns and cities, helping to encourage visitors and bring new business opportunities to the area.” Dionne Cox, Network Rail’s senior programme manager based at nearby Derby, explained that Derbyshire County Council, Network Rail and principal contractor Galliford Try had worked well together and minimised the inconvenience for local residents, some of whom live right next to the station site. Northern Rail will operate the main train service hourly between Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. East Midlands Trains are the station operator and will supply the train services, not only to Nottingham and Sheffield but, as area station manager Rob Burton explained, the Norwich to Liverpool service will be one of the trains that stops, linking the Derbyshire town with Merseyside and Norfolk. The 100-metre platforms are the exact length of a four-car Class 158 train, or can be used by a fivecar Meridian if it is stopped precisely as the end doors are crew-only. 160,000 passengers a year are expected to use the new station initially, rising to 250,000 over time. A commute to Nottingham will take 15-20 minutes, as opposed to 40-60 by road, with similar time-savings to Sheffield. So buy a house in Ilkeston now, the prices are sure to go up!

Our haulage arm – able to handle up to

11,400kg

Haigh Haulage, part of Haigh Rail Limited, is a specialist haulier available for hire to clients throughout the rail industry. Established at the beginning of 2017, we offer a cost-effective service for the lifting and placing of materials and assets into position, including:

The body of our Scania R Series lorry features a hydraulically-folding beavertail, for moving all types of heavy plant and equipment. The 40-metre Effer 395 5S loader crane offers outstanding manouevrability and load-bearing capacity – 2,070kg at 14.59m and up to 11,400kg at 2.88m.

• Cable drums • LOC cabinets • REBs • Civils materials • Road rail plant • Scrap materials • Rails and S&C • Bulk bags of aggregates • Sleepers

Our haulage service is widely available for call-outs, emergency response situations, commissionings and blockades.

Safe

Responsible

info@haighhaulage.com

Quality

People

Collaborate 01772 458000

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Rail Exec goes

to the Ironmongers

DAVID SHIRRES

arly records suggest that the Ironmongers’ Guild was an effective body in 1300 when they took action against the blacksmiths of Kent and Sussex over the quality of iron supplied for cart wheels in the City of London. Today, it is no longer a standards body for the iron industry but remains one of London’s twelve great livery companies whose main work is now the administration of charitable trusts, as well as being deeply involved in the pageantry of the City. The Ironmongers’ Hall therefore provided a splendid venue for the recent Rail Exec Club meeting which was attended by eighty senior rail professionals from 35 companies. This provided a networking opportunity over the drinks reception followed by a four-course luncheon to the accompaniment of award winning pianist Michael Sikich of the Guildhall School of Music & Drama. Before and after the lunch, the Rail Exec Club’s three speakers addressed the need for change and innovation. Professor Peter Hansford has recently been commissioned by Network Rail to lead a review of alternative project delivery models. Eric Holmes of Bombardier and Nick Dunne of Siemens both spoke about the benefits to their companies and the rail industry from specific innovations.

Outside party involvement As a past president of the Institution of Civil Engineers and former chief construction adviser to the Government, Professor Peter

Hansford is well qualified to lead a review of rail projects. In his speech, he explained that his study is to consider how rail infrastructure can be funded, developed and built by parties beyond Network Rail. He also felt that, compared with automotive and aerospace, there was limited innovation within the rail industry. He is convinced that, if the rail industry is to grow as required, it must find ways of encouraging third

party investment and infrastructure delivery. To do so, his review is identifying what is getting in the way of outside party involvement and will consider how these barriers can be removed or, as he put it, “we must try to unravel the complexity of railway projects.” The Hansford review was commissioned in December. Peter advised that, to support him in this work, he has appointed a panel of “six wise men and women” who bring experience from rail industry and other industries. Three of them - Amey group chief executive Andy Milner, Matthew Symes (Concerto) and Mike Gerrard - were present at the lunch and networking with guests.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Consultants from the Nichols Group are also supporting the review. A call for evidence to be submitted in confidence was issued just before Christmas. The resulting response was “amazing” and required the deadline to be extended by two weeks. The review team is also considering case studies of projects that have, and have not, worked, as well as holding an industry seminar and meeting various parties to gather evidence. Peter considers his goal is to “create conditions to grow, operate and maintain a railway network that keeps its customers, both passengers and freight, at its very heart.” He expects that his review will recommend practical measures to support this aim. Professor Hansford is to present his findings to the Network Rail board in May, after which his review team will produce a final report.

Automatic vehicle inspection systems

The What and the How

The second speaker of the day was Eric Holmes, who has been with Bombardier since 1998 and is now head of global bid support services, having previously been responsible for the development of new innovative products and services. His message was that achieving the required cost reductions and increases in capacity will require the best use of future technology. As far as rolling stock is concerned, this aspiration is supported by a change in rolling stock procurement strategy which now takes account of whole-life costs, of which capital cost is typically a third. Hence energy consumption, maintenance requirements and track damage are now significant factors in the selection of rolling stock. Eric explained that, as a result, there is now a business case for automatic vehicle inspection systems which, when combined with integrated vehicle health management and diagnostic software, offer significant maintenance savings by using condition data instead of manual inspection. However, such a departure from current practice requires significant investment in verification, validation and approval. He advised that, compared with the Electrostars, this approach will enable the Crossrail Aventra train to operate for fifty per cent longer between examinations with a onethird labour saving per exam. Eric outlined other Bombardier innovations which offered sustainability benefits and improved the company’s own business processes. His key messages were that appropriate technology must be identified for each application, that innovation only delivers real value if a pull is created within the receiving organisation and that it requires highly motivated individuals who can articulate vision on the ground.

The final speaker was Nick Dunne, who is director of technology for Siemens Rail Automation. As such, he is responsible for the Siemens UK technology strategy for signalling and communications. He felt that the industry was at a major turning point and had to make a step change by doing something different both in terms of technology and project delivery. He stressed that this is about both the ‘What’ and the ‘How’ as, with the complexity of our railway system, the How will dictate the What. To focus on the delivery of something that will provide extra capacity, without adequate consideration of the processes and technologies to maintain a 24/7 service during the project, is a recipe for failure. One example of the ‘How’ is the object controllers for signals, which Nick advised were essential for the delivery of the Thameslink scheme and also provide richer data about the state of the railway. He was proud of the way Siemens had worked closely with Network Rail on this complex project, which is expected to get approval to carry passengers under full ETCS level 2 control in August. Other examples that Nick mentioned were factory-assembled modular signalling, mathematical proving and auto-verification models that can replace scarce design and test resources for deployment elsewhere and improve safety by removing the human interface and making extensive use of off-site testing. After a slow start, Nick felt that the industry was waking up to the possibilities of traffic management which overlays existing systems. This requires any new equipment to be digitally enabled. He felt that all these potential increases in capacity, reliability and availability could improve the passenger experience but might move the problem elsewhere in the end-to-end

journey. For this reason, Siemens and others are investing heavily in the Government’s ‘Smart Cities’ initiative. Rail is a complex industry, and Nick was clearly supportive of the Hansford review. He felt that there was strong support from the private sector to invest both funds and expertise to improve the delivery of infrastructure upgrades and accelerate innovation by adopting a mature approach to whole-life management of the infrastructure, providing a step change in the passenger experience. Nick had personal experience of public-private partnership - as an engineer, he had found them hugely rewarding and he was sure that the rail industry could get there. All in all, this Rail Exec Club meeting was both an enjoyable and fascinating experience, with three speakers who all see the need for a step change in the way things should be done and who offered some solutions. Their messages need to be listened to, and what better way to do this than over an enjoyable lunch.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

At Aquarius Railroad Technologies we believe in making everyday railway maintenance tasks simpler & safer. Our Road2Rail 4x4 vehicles help our clients be “Quick to site, Rapid to work”* by providing RRVs that are easy to use and flexible for many uses. *as described by Neil Moriarty, whilst at Heathrow Express

Proud winners of Rail Live 2016 Award for Outstanding Contribution to Safety

Aquarius Railroad Technologies Ltd Providing quality Road2Rail vehicles - Available for hire nationwide

Call 01765 635 021 Visit www.aquariusrail.com Email abi@aquariusrail.com

Aquarius Advert June/July 2016 Rail Engineer.indd 1

27/06/2016 10:04

0203 598 6383

w w w. h i g h v i z m e d i a . c o m

info@highvizmedia.com

Capturing the rail industry.

Let High Viz Media’s team of highly skilled and experienced ﬁlm makers tell your story. Using the latest technology and techniques, together with extensive experience in the rail sector, we can offer multi-skilled media support for your project.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

MUNGO STACY

Industry Workshop on

Track-Bridge Interaction

n informative and productive industry workshop about track-bridge interaction was held recently at the Somerset County Cricket ground in Taunton. The workshop brought together over 40 track and bridge experts from the across the UK and Europe and also attracted delegates from Japan.

David Rhodes of D R Squared is the chair of the European Standards (CEN) task group on track-bridge interaction, which is currently developing updated requirements for inclusion in European standards. He started the workshop by summarising the fundamentals of trackbridge interaction. This topic has become of increasing interest in recent years due to the change in relative stiffnesses of track and structure. He contrasted the ‘old’ way, exemplified by a masonry viaduct with jointed rail, where there is a ‘rigid’ bridge structure with ‘flexible’ track. In comparison the ‘new’ approach, demonstrated on high-speed

Do I really need rail expansion joints?

rail lines, has more-flexible long span structures and more-rigid trackforms such as slab track. The phenomenon of track-bridge interaction relates to forces which occur due to relative movement of the track and the bridge. This can occur as the temperature changes, due to traction and braking of the trains and due to bridge deformation under vertical loads. Bridges tend to be articulated using bearings. The bridge will expand and contract as the temperature rises and falls. In contrast, continuous welded rail remains the same length but the stresses in the rail become more compressive or tensile as the temperature increases and decreases.

FORCE

Track-bridge interaction is one of those interfaces where the bridge engineers tend to assume that it is a ‘track problem’, the track engineers do not necessarily understand the bridge design process, and the specialist supplier, when brought in at a late stage, is left with an insoluble problem. The aim of this workshop was to promote a joint understanding of the issues around trackbridge interaction, highlight requirements in current and proposed codes and standards and discuss the need for communication between bridge engineers and track engineers.

The relative movement of the bridge under the static rail tends to ‘drag’ the rail with the bridge movement, and the forces transmitted through the fasteners give rise to additional stresses within the rail and additional forces imposed on the bridge deck. The ‘give’ between track and deck is described by a force/displacement curve. This is typically modelled by two parameters. u0 is the maximum elastic displacement. Up to this movement, the fastening behaves as an elastic spring and is considered to obey Hooke’s law, with force proportional to displacement. Beyond this point, the fastening becomes nonlinear and is modelled as behaving plastically and applying a constant force, k. This constant k is given as force per unit length for two rails, hence has units N/m. The choice of letter k is somewhat confusing since this is not a stiffness, but this is now the industry-accepted terminology.

u0 DISPLACEMENT OF RAIL RELATIVE TO BRIDGE DECK

Rail Engineer • April 2017

To close his presentation, David Rhodes considered the options available to the track engineer. There are two fundamental alternatives. The first option is to install a rail expansion device where there is a discontinuity in the structure in order to avoid any additional rail stresses. Alternatively, the track engineer can opt to accept some locally increased rail stresses. This increase can be limited, either by specifying a limit on the expansion length of the bridge, or by putting a limitation directly on the additional rail stress.

Why can’t we design a highway bridge and put a railway track on top? John Lane of RSSB presented a view from the bridge engineering side. He noted the difference between highway and rail loads, with typically heavier and faster vehicles present in the rail environment. He also noted the need for compliance with track geometry quality requirements, such as those given in the Infrastructure Technical Specification for Interoperability. The deformation requirements for bridges, which had originally been developed as guidance in leaflet UIC 774-3, have now been incorporated into the bridge design standards BS EN 1990 and BS EN 1991-2. These are now mandated through the Technical Specifications for Interoperability. Bridge designers are therefore required to demonstrate, amongst other criteria, that acceptable values are achieved for bridge vertical deflection, vertical acceleration, twist, deck end rotation and longitudinal displacement at the deck ends due to traction and braking. The bridge design standards also contain codified limits on the additional rail stresses, of 72N/mm2 in compression and 92N/mm2 under tension. The work of Mr Rhodes’ task group

suggests that these limits should be relaxed in certain cases, for example where rails are continuously restrained laterally such as in slab track. The background to the current additional rail stress limits of 72N/mm2 and 92N/mm2 has been located and placed in the public domain. It was also noted that, strictly, these limits only apply to UIC60 rail on ballasted track with sleepers spaced at 650mm. The background report describes the derivation of the stress limits and provides the methodology which could be applied to other sleeper and rail configurations.

Selection of track system components Steve Cox of Pandrol Track Systems highlighted some of the analytical techniques available to calculate the rail stresses. These are referred to as ‘additional’ rail stresses, since they are over-and-above the stresses which would be present in continuous welded rail subject to the same temperature and stressing history, but without the presence of a bridge.

The additional rail stresses can be calculated using finite element models, but these need to take into account the non-linear behaviour of the fastenings. This is typically achieved by iteration until a valid solution is achieved. The model also needs to take account of the fastening force generated due to thermal effects under the ‘unloaded’ condition, and the variation due to traction and braking under the ‘loaded’ condition when the fastenings are considered to have greater stiffness.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

PHOTO: MARX KRONTAL GmbH

Next, Steve Cox outlined some of the options available to track engineers to control the additional rail stresses generated by track-bridge interaction. Changes to the fastening components can be used to adjust the two main parameters of the force/displacement curve, u0 and k. He considered the possible extremes, ranging from rail being fully welded to the structure giving a rigid non-slip connection, to the opposite extreme of a friction-free connection. In practice, neither of these extremes would give a practical engineering solution. However, a spectrum of options is available between these extremes, including standard fastenings, low toe load fastenings, very elastic fastenings and zero longitudinal restraint fastenings. Presenting results obtained from tests of different fastening arrangements, Steve Cox showed that, by varying the toe load, it is possible to obtain a four-fold difference in creep resistance, k. By adjusting the vertical resilience of the assembly it is possible to obtain differences in the slip deflection u0. Consequently, it is possible to engineer a considerable variation of more than an order of magnitude in the slope of the linear region of the graph, representing the stiffness of the fastening assembly.

Bridge case studies and monitoring Marc Wenner of Marx Krontal presented a case study illustrating the calculation of additional rail stresses due to bridge movement. This highlighted that the structure joints are usually the decisive locations for considering the additional rail stresses (above right). It also explored the effect of the nonlinearity in the fastening system, in particular, that using linear superposition of the thermal and traction/braking

σadd.3(ΔTB)

σΔTR=-E·αth·ΔTR

joints are generally decisive places for rail stresses Loadcase ΔTR = -50 K (comprised3implicit3in3limit3value)3by3CWR σ Tension σΔTR=-E·αth·ΔTR

effects rather than nonlinear combination, would typically result in an unconservative underestimation of the relative displacements between the track and the bridge. Next, Marc Wenner presented some initial results from a monitoring programme of a new high-speed rail bridge on the Nürnberg to Berlin route, the Gänsebachtalbrücke (above left). This is an innovative semi-integral structure with an expansion length of 112 metres, on which the calculated rail stresses were close to the admissible limits. The federal railway office implemented a monitoring programme to confirm the results achieved in service. The programme included comparison of rail stress over time due to temperature changes, and bridge displacements under braking of a test train.

PHOTO: MARX KRONTAL GmbH

Lastfall ΔTB = -30 K und ΔTR = -50 K σ Tension

Load case ΔTB = -30 K (Result3from3model)3 Tension

σadd.3(ΔTB)

0 ΔTR3=3-503K3

LT3

ΔTB3=3-303K3

expansion joint system. The system consists of longitudinal moveable stock rails and stationary switch rails, and is available in four variants allowing for movements of up to +/- 900mm. A crossbar mechanism provides support to the rails as the structure joint size expands. More than 600 units have been in service since the early 1990s in Germany, Spain and Sweden. More than 100 units have been installed in China since 2013 for speeds of up to 300kph on ballasted and ballastless track.

Pont Briwet

Laying down the challenge

Jerry Barnes of Hewson Consulting and Sean Ring of Beazley Sharpe (Railwise) discussed the benefits they had achieved on the Pont Briwet bridge (below) replacement on the Cambrian Railway in Wales. The bridge is 133 metres long and integral, with track on a 465-metre radius curve. The original Form A had included for long-blade movement switches coupled with a breather joint at each end of the bridge. Careful consideration of track-bridge interaction allowed for these to be designed out and the use of unbroken continuous welded rail to be justified, giving considerable cost savings.

Angus Low ended the workshop with his personal views based on many years of international bridge design with Arup. He drew attention to what appeared to be a general confusion around track-bridge interaction. He illustrated this with numerous documents from around the world regarding track-bridge interaction which appeared to be contradictory to the UIC leaflet 774-3. He also highlighted deviations between accepted industry practice and the text of the UIC leaflets and queried the common practice of using increased fastening stiffness under a train, since the movement of the train may allow the vertical stresses in the fastenings to be released. Summarising the day’s presentations, it would seem that the track-bridge interaction ‘problem’ is largely defined by the bridge configuration. The bridge engineer should therefore be conscious of the rail systems requirements, and if necessary engage early with experienced track engineers and suppliers. However, it was noted that this could be difficult in some contracting environments, particularly if the structure is designed long in advance of the rail systems contracts being let. Closing the workshop, David Rhodes noted the developments in standards at European level which should help clarify some of the trackstructure requirements. He noted that research and monitoring programmes are ongoing, such as those described by Marc Wenner, and that further development was likely.

Rail expansion joint system On some occasions rail expansion joints will continue to be necessary. Johannes Rohlmann and Burkhard Zillien described the Voestalpine rail

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Improved project modelling

THINKlab

using

CHRIS PARKER

hen promoting its range of events, Rail Media often stresses the importance of networking. This can have many fruitful results - suppliers can meet new customers, contractors find new suppliers, and companies discover collaboration partners.

In addition, everyone can hear just what is going on in the industry. A good example of this came at last year's Rail Exec Club Gala Dinner, held in Derby in December. In discussions at the start of the evening, Network Rail’s Roy Hickman met one of Rail Engineer’s writers and announced that he had a story that the magazine must cover. This is that story, about an award-winning project.

4D modelling About two years ago, Network Rail was having too many over-runs on major projects that involved complex sites. The issue appeared to be the inability to schedule such projects sufficiently accurately and in enough detail to avoid problems, such as clashes in space or time, when the actual works took place. The S&C South Alliance was one of the teams that was seeking a solution to this difficulty. The project team wished to find a different way of working, using better modelling of schemes, and they were investigating the possibility of using proprietary BIM software from well-known providers. However, Andy Bibby of AECOM, one of the team, became aware of the work being done at the University of Salford, where the THINKlab team in the School of the Built Environment was doing interesting things in the same area of project modeling and simulation. As a result, Roy Hickman, Ameet Masania and Steve Naybour from the alliance collaborated with THINKlab director Professor Terrence Fernando and his team. Together, they developed a modelling and simulation system for track renewal programmes, in four dimensions (3-D space plus time), based upon a GIS system, track information and a library of plant and equipment.

For each project, the GIS data is assembled using modern technologies, such as laser scanners, combined with a CAD model of the tracks to create a 3D virtual site. Once this is available, it is then possible to create a 4D simulation of the track renewal activities in time and space that represents any given stage in the planned project. Working from the initial condition of the site, and using library information about the capabilities of the available plant, the progress of the project may be modelled. This modelling of the construction sequence is potentially invaluable. Different options may be explored so as to optimise the project to best deliver the required outcomes. For example, there might be decisions to be made about sequencing different activities, or about which plant to employ. The effects of the different possible options can be modelled, and this may reveal that certain choices are impractical, or that some are more effective than others.

Balancing time and cost As the library information includes costing details as well as production rates, the simulation can give a realistic indication of both the costs and time for any proposed option. Thus, the best option can be chosen to deliver the optimal balance of time and cost. In addition, it has been quite common in the past to hire in expertise in order to construct 4D animated visualisations of projects. These are useful for a number of reasons, particularly in showing the project to stakeholders in an easily understood manner. Since it is a 4D plan, not just a 4D model, the THINKlab output serves this purpose directly without the need for any further work. What is more, when changes are made to the plant timings, sequence or resources,

these are directly input to the plan as an integral part of the planning process. The construction sequence model therefore reflects such changes automatically and the consequences can instantly be visually demonstrated to the project stakeholders. Terrence Fernando told Rail Engineer that the success of the system is such that, in a recent trial, it took two new engineers only half an hour to understand how to use it, and only about four hours to model a project which would previously have taken about a week. Ten Network Rail track renewals sites are now using the THINKlab modelling system: Hinksey, New Cross, Euston, Connonburys, Thirsk Green Lane, Kelvedon Parkway Stage 2, High Dyke and Peckfield. Network Rail recently signed a new contract with the University of Salford to roll it out across the network. Other engineering disciplines, such as signalling, are very interested in applying this to their works, and eventually it is likely that multidisciplinary models will be common. Steve Naybour, head of transformation at S&C South Alliance, said: “This is a 4D planning package for now that will take us into the future of delivering more.” The project was successful at the National Construction Excellence Awards recently, winning the award for “the Most Outstanding BIM Project of the Year”.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

A Pintsch of

German engineering in Banbury A

s in most industries, the success of railway engineering projects is built on the relationships between the different contractors and suppliers involved. To achieve the required level of quality sometimes involves going the extra mile - or, in the case of Banbury depot, several hundred miles.

A brand new light maintenance depot for Chiltern Railways is being built just south of Banbury, as part of Network Rail’s infrastructure upgrade around the town. The site is south of Banbury station and was formerly occupied by a British Rail engine shed, which ceased operation in the 1960s and was demolished in the 1970s. In February 2015, Cherwell District Council approved a formal planning application from Network Rail and Chiltern Railways to bring the former British Rail site in Banbury back into use after almost 50 years. The depot will accommodate up to 58 rail vehicles along with up to four Network Rail track maintenance vehicles. It will be used for stabling and maintenance, including routine servicing, cleaning and fuelling, with most of this taking place overnight. However, the site will operate 24 hours a day, with work in the daytime hours concentrating on routine maintenance and urgent repair work.

The project at Banbury depot called for innovative and cost-efficient engineering options through electrical and electronic components, subsystems and systems for the control, safety and automation of the track system in guided traffic. For Pintsch Tiefenbach, this was the first instance of the company providing a technical interface to Network Rail systems - its current installations elsewhere in the UK, including those at Wembley and Central Rivers depots, are limited to an operational interface only. Fenix’s work included the innovative PITB points system. The design has an interface with the Network Rail main line, which was commissioned at the end of a nine-day blockade from 30 July to 8 August 2016. During this time, the project proved to be both interesting and challenging as it required detailed consultation and discussions with all the disciplines involved, including track, telecoms, civils, buildings and M&E - not to mention

Anglo-German cooperation Fenix Signalling has supplied the new depot’s signalling control system, handling the design, installation, testing and commissioning in conjunction with Pintsch Tiefenbach, a company that provides depot signalling and control systems, based in Sprockhövel, Germany. Following his return to Fenix as managing director, Craig Purcell (pictured right) has fostered a relationship with the German manufacturer and has sent engineers from Fenix’s Warwickshire base to Germany on a number of occasions to receive training in the application of Pintsch Tiefenbach’s products.

Point machine with protectors.

environmental considerations in the handling of rainwater and local wildlife. This is the first time a technical interface to the main line signalling system has been provided, and is done via volts-free relay contacts. It has the potential to be a standard interface between electronic (SSI) depot and mainline signalling systems. Following the completion of GRIP stages 4-5 (single option development and detailed design), engineers from Fenix made further trips to Pintsch Tiefenbach’s German-base to validate the factory-testing programme as well as strengthen the working relationship in preparation for system implementation in August of last year. During the blockade in August, the points at the entrance to the depot were also installed, as well as two stop boards at the depot boundaries. The testers worked in the late-summer sunshine to install the points machine with a Pintsch Tiefenbach points fitter. It took just 80 minutes to install in the four-foot, much quicker than any UK-type point machine as there was no drilling of the rail required to fit the lock and drive-rod connections.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

In more detail The Pintsch Tiefenbach signalling system uses WH90i point machines from fellow German manufacturer Wolber. Mounted in a distinctive yellow housing, the system is highly robust and, with an IP67 rating, is immersible in water and fully resistant to the dust and grime of the railway. Although not usually a practice in the UK, the machines are trailable, meaning that a move through a set of trailing points set in the wrong position does not damage the machine. There is also only one cable required, unlike most UK mechanisms which require two, as the WH90i provides the 400V three-phase supply and also the detection in one cable. Craig Purcell commented: “A lot of effort was made to tailor the depot signalling system to the needs of the operator and provide a flexible system whilst ensuring that the system delivered is easy to maintain and will be cost effective now and in the future. “The depot signalling system specified enables the operator to deliver a more efficient movement of trains thanks to improved visibility/knowledge of train location and length

(car counting function), powered point operation and automatic routing of trains via wayside signals. The car counting function is provided on stabling tracks and enables the operator to decide if another vehicle will fit into the same section. “The depot signalling system will also improve safety by reducing the need for lineside working by hand-shunters.” In the early hours of 18 December, the Fenix team completed the commissioning of the stabling stage, adding two new sidings and two new ends of points to power (including clipping and padlocking). Going forward, Fenix Signalling and Pintsch Tiefenbach will be working together again on a number of new projects including Manningtree in Essex.

Rail Engineer • April 2017

Using drones

more complicated

rones, otherwise known as unmanned aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), can be found everywhere these days. They are bought as toys – the Federal Aviation Administration was expecting 1.9 million to be sold in 2016 rising to 7 million in 2020 – and also as professional photographic platforms (there are around 600,000 of those). With such substantial use comes misuse. Drones have been used to overfly football matches, have got too close to landing aircraft around Heathrow, and have been used to smuggle drugs into prisons. And following on misuse comes regulation. In the UK, drones (otherwise known as “unmanned aircraft”) are subject to a number of rules and regulations depending on their weight and proposed use. The principal piece of legislation governing drones is the Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO) effected through the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

PHOTO: THE BIONIC EYE

than you might think

The key points to note under ANO are as follows: Overriding Principle. It is prohibited “to recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property”. Weight. To avoid falling within the remit of more extensive aviation regulations and be classified as a “small unmanned aircraft”, it is advisable not to exceed 20kg. Most aerial filming drones or camera drones weigh significantly less than 20kg.

Use. The most relevant Articles are 94 and 95 ANO. Article 94 ANO applies to all drones weighing less than 20kg. Article 95 ANO applies to drones weighing less than 20kg which are also used for surveillance (i.e. recording and filming). There are two particular points of note: 1. If you wish to use a drone for “commercial operations” then you must apply to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for permission. Unless you are using a drone for

filming as a hobby, as Keith Bremner was when he caught Top Gear being filmed, then permission from the CAA will likely be required. 2. Drones may not fly: (a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area or open-air assembly of more than 1,000 people without permission from the CAA (such as over a major sports match); and (b) drones may not fly within 50 metres of any vehicle, building structure or person not under the control of the drone pilot without permission from the CAA. Permission and Penalties. Applying for permission from the CAA can be rather complicated. Due to the complexities involved it may be advisable to seek a specialist contractor who has all the necessary insurance and CAA permissions to assist with any filming work, especially considering that failure to comply with the ANO is a criminal offence.

Copyright Photographs. Under UK copyright law, the first owner of the copyright will be the photographer, unless the photographer was an employee. In that case, the employer will own the copyright in the photograph. Films. What about moving pictures (i.e. films)? Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, a film has two legal owners: the producer and the principal director. Again, if the film is made during the course of employment, the employer will own the copyright in the film. In the case of drones, the owners will probably be the person who programmed the drone to make the film (i.e. the producer) and the person who has “creative control” (i.e. the principal director who decides what to film and how to film it).

Data Protection and Privacy In the UK, there is no specific data protection legislation on the use of drones. A breach of privacy is likely to be dealt with under the established law on breach of confidence through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has, however, said that drones “can be highly privacy-intrusive” as they may capture images of individuals “unnecessarily”.

In light of this, the ICO has released some guidance which should be followed - ‘In the picture: A data protection code of practice for surveillance cameras and personal information’. It is advisable for anyone considering using drones in their next film or TV production, for instance, to read this, particularly considering the penalties. The penalties for getting it wrong can be severe. The ICO has the power to impose a fine of up to £500,000 where a drone operator seriously contravenes UK data protection law and the “contravention is of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress, and is deliberate or likely and should have been prevented”. As previously noted, this will become more significant in May 2018 when the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force.

Network Rail Unsurprisingly, there are some specific regulations that apply to the use of drones near the railway. Drone operators wanting to fly closer than the 50 metre CAA limit need to be on Network Rail’s authorised UAV framework and show that they understand the regulations, have the necessary licences, training and processes in place, and are permitted to operate UAVs near the railway infrastructure. Non-framework operators should be RISQS registered

PHOTO: LANES GROUP

Rail Engineer • April 2017

and are not permitted to fly closer than 50 metres to any Network Rail infrastructure, people or buildings. In addition, the current weight limit for unmanned aircraft operating on or near Network Rail infrastructure is seven kilogrammes MAUW (maximum all up weight). The operator must have the correct pilot qualifications, be insured appropriately, be well versed in the assessment and mitigation of risk and follow best practice in the operation of these systems. So before you buy a drone to take some stunning aerial shots of your latest project, or a new train, or even your allotment – just think on the regulations. The article is based on a blog by Simon Halberstam, partner and head of the technology law group at Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP.

PHOTO: MRL EYE

Rail Engineer • April 2017

RECRUITMENT

0845 463 5952

General Manager Flexible package starting at around £34,000 - £38,000 p.a. STOURBRIDGE – WEST MIDLANDS

‘An opportunity to join one of the most successful rail based transport companies in the UK and we are looking for an outstanding individual to fill this new post.’ Your role will include the following key responsibilities: Managing the day to day operations and engineering activities of PMOL. Reporting on a regular basis to the Directors on all aspects of operational and engineering performance. Acting as our primary contact with the WM franchise holder – London Midland. Full responsibility for staffing issues including the deployment of competent staff to meet operational requirements. Maintaining the associated office/administration systems and procedures. Managing the Health and Safety requirements of the organisation. You will need to have a degree or equivalent qualification in a related discipline, good communication and IT skills. You will also need to be able to manage change and deal with ‘Safety Critical’ and staff disciplinary issues as required. Ideally you will have knowledge of public transport operations and have management experience in a service delivery organisation. For further details of the company and a full job description for the post please refer to our website at www.premetro.co.uk If you are interested in this exciting and challenging opportunity, please submit a CV (no more than 3 A4 pages) to: premetro@aol.com or call +44 (01384) 441325 for further information. Closing date for applications April 29th 2017

Principal OLE Design Engineer | Manchester, York, Birmingham and London – CRE accredited – circa £500 a day Project Coordinator |

Birmingham – Permanent – Circa £25’000

P-Way Designer | Manchester – Mainline Rail – Contract or perm – £££ Competitive E&P Design Manager | Birmingham and Bristol – experience in a principal position – circa £500 a day QS | York – Mainline Rail – Permanent – £££ Competitive PICOT – Telecoms | Midlands – Contract – £££ Competitive Senior SISS Design | North West and Midlands – Permanent – £££ Negotiable

We would also be interested in hearing from Signalling Design Engineers and Permanent Way Design Engineers with Mainline Rail experience for a number of other requirements nationwide.

info@suitablecandidates.com | www.suitablecandidates.com

Search RailwayPeople.com for 1000s of exciting new opportunities online

SEE US A RAI T STA LTE ND X 20 D85 17

ITE LAU N EBS W

ED CH

NEW

Boost your career prospects

Offering Specialist Resourcing and Head Hunting capabilities to the Rail market

THE JOB LARG SIT EST E IN DED THE ICAT WO ED R way RLD AIL People.com

We have two, splendid aren’t they The East Midlands Trains logo is a key element of the core brand and should appear in a consistent manner on all communication material.

“Outstanding opportunities in Fleet Engineering and Depot Management.” When to use our logo with the retail channels?

Our logo

Our logo with retail channels

communication piecesacross where a network of routes in central/northern England and to London. It is a part of East Midlands Trains carries overOn66,000 people customers are directed to find out more The Stagecoach Group that alsoinformation operates South West Trains, Island Line, Sheffield Supertram and is a partner with Virgin Rail Group in the or are directed to book tickets online. operation of the East Coast franchise. It should never be used by partners of East Midlands Trains.

HEAD OF FLEET ENGINEERING

DEPOT MANAGER

Derby | £ Attractive salary plus benefits

Neville Hill, Leeds | £ Attractive salary plus benefits

This is a Professional Head role leading a team of 6, reporting to board level.

With over 200 depot staff delivering light and heavy maintenance activities on a range of fleets, the Depot Manager leads a team optimising site performance and profitability.

•

Professional leadership in rolling stock engineering, depot facilities and procurement with ownership of maintenance and overhaul policies, standards and approval of modifications

•

Compliance concerning technical and competence management at all EMT sites

•

Manage and develop a professional engineering team and support the training of engineers across the company

•

Support the strategic and operational leadership of the business

•

Lead technical investigations and the review of significant industry incidents

•

Develop the safety culture including the application of standards and best practice.

Candidates should be Chartered Engineers with degree or equivalent level education, strong analytical skills and understanding of risk assessment gained in rolling stock environments. Able to influence at all levels, candidates should be team players, users of initiative and challengers of existing thinking.

•

Ensure train delivery to customers on-time, to cost and quality standards

•

Lead, support and motivate the depot team to meet service and safety requirements

•

Performance improvement through customer relationship management

•

Professional management of contracts for supplier’s services

•

Lead the development of business improvement processes, optimising profitability

•

Lead site development, facilities maintenance, budget management and forecasting

Candidates should be educated to degree standard or equivalent with managerial experience in rolling stock production including financial, contracts and employment management. Personal skills should include motivation, negotiation, leadership and development.

Remuneration for both roles will include attractive salaries, strong pension scheme membership benefits, rail travel facilities and bonus scheme arrangements. Please forward your cv to sarah@rgsexecutive.co.uk or call Rod Shaw, RGS Executive on 0115 959 9687 with any particular queries.

A solid track record…

…achieved through strong and collaborative teamwork With a core of specialist skills in M&E, electrification and power, plus the backing of the full range of disciplines for the UK’s railway, more rail infrastructure and engineering organisations are choosing to partner with SSE Enterprise Rail.

We are part of SSE plc, with vast resources and industry expertise throughout the UK and Ireland.

We have delivered some of the industry’s most complex projects, working across multiple disciplines, from our 63 locations across the UK.

We hold a principal contractor’s licence and more than 200 RISQS codes.

Contact: Stewart Macpherson stewart.macpherson@sse.com

07810 818069

We put safety above all else and have received the RoSPA President’s Award for nine consecutive years.