Rail Engineer - Issue 130 - August 2015

Engineer

by rail engineers for rail engineers

AUGUST 2015 - ISSUE 130

What you see is NOT necessarily what you get

WINCHBURGH BLOCKADE

EASING THE FLOW

BIGGEST EVER CHALLENGE

Part of EGIP Electrification, track lowering up to 200 mm and the installation of slab track.

Stafford Area Improvement Programme, removing the last major bottleneck on the WCML at Norton Bridge.

David Shirres reports on the 4th annual IMechE Railway Challenge as Universities compete with Industry.

www.railengineer.uk

@StobartRailLtd MEADOW BANK, EDINBURGH This project was known as the Powderhall Branch

The machines, their operators and a team of highly

Stobart Rail reballasted over 460 metres of the single line to

underneath plain line, single line, switches and/or crossings.

Re-ballasting Scheme. Utilising the Ballast Under Cutter,

a depth of 300mm beneath the sleeper bottom. In addition, and running concurrently with the under cutter, our team completed a 1 in 3 sleeper change.

Stobart Rail’s Ballast Under Cutters, and the processes in which they are used, have been developed and improved

qualified operators can efficiently remove ballast from This includes those with third and fourth rails.

The Ballast Under Cutter also offers opportunities for track

lowering, wet beds, removal of contaminated ballast and applying cross fail to the formation to improve drainage.

so that spent ballast can be removed to give a level formation – or with cross fall, if required – and then replenished, without the need to break the track.

Project overview Network Rail selected Stobart Rail as the contractor to deliver the re-ballasting scheme at four sites; Marionville Road, Lochend Park, Butterfly Way and Albion Road.

The project delivery strategy was developed utilising in-house expertise, including resources and innovative plant such as the Ballast Under Cutter and Liebherr, ensuring value engineering delivery throughout each site.

The work was completed during midweek day possessions, over a three week period.

This project was successfully completed, with its objectives delivered safely, within budget and exceeding the expectations of Network Rail.

Douglas Craig, Network Rail Project Manager: “I was impressed with Stobart Rail’s commitment to this project, including attendance at initial site meetings to review our requirements and to talk through potential solutions. The site preparation was fantastic, establishing a site compound including welfare facilities and storing materials/small plant securely lineside. All staff on site were dedicated to the job. Craig Jones was excellent to deal with throughout the project. We are looking at other potential sites to use the Ballast Under Cutter.”

Our Key Project Achievements: • 466 metres of re-ballasting • Project delivered within budget • No reportable safety incidents occurred throughout the entire project

Craig Jones Project Manager e. craig.jones@stobartrail.com Andrew Sumner Business Development and Stakeholder Manager e. andrew.sumner@stobartrail.com Dave Richardson Plant Manager e. david.richardson@stobartrail.com Gary Newton Contracts and Estimating Manager e. gary.newton@stobartrail.com Stobart Rail Head Office t. 01228 882 300 Douglas Craig Project Manager e. Douglas.craig@networkrail.co.uk

• In excess of 2,000 tonnes of new ballast installed.

stobartrail.com

Rail Engineer • August 2015

3

Contents

Access All Areas

Normal inspection techniques cannot be used in many cases on the network's bridges and tunnels.

News Rochdale, Wallasea, LOTRAIN.

22 Fine upstanding member

26 Biggest ever challenge The annual Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) Railway Challenge at Stapleford Miniature Railway.

46 Developments in Auckland

6

What You See Is NOT Necessarily What You Get Grahame Taylor finds hidden chambers inside Moulsford Viaduct.

12

Lichfield’s Ancient Industrial Access Road Rebuilding the bridge that takes Ryknild Street over the WCML.

18

Winchburgh’s 44-day Blockade David Shirres on a complete closure of the Edinburgh-Glasgow line.

32

Asset Manager: Developing A Data Driven Railway Collin Carr defines ORBIS, PLPR, SCADA and LADS.

38

Easing The Flow Stuart Marsh visits the Stafford Area Improvements Programme.

42

Applying Logic To Level Crossings Paul Darlington investigates Obstacle Detection.

50

Red Light Cameras Catching offenders who misuse level crossings on camera.

56

Lengthy Barrier Repairs Lifting a 9.1 metre long level-crossing barrier can be wearing.

60

Innovation: Opening The Gates Unlocking Innovation with Clive Kessell.

66

Repairing RCF Chris Parker attended the IoRW’s 2015 Technical Seminar.

72

Photo Competition Up and Running A look at some of the early entries attempting to win a Smartphone.

78

KAZAM Tornado 350 Susie O’Neill reviews the photo competition prize.

80

62

See more at www.railengineer.uk

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

Track & Drainage

Rolling Stock / Depots

in the October issue of Rail Engineer.

Got a fantastic innovation? Working on a great project? Call Nigel on 01530 816 445 NOW!

Delivering whole life, end-to-end asset lifecycle solutions As one of the UK’s leading engineering solutions providers, we specialise in technical delivery, innovative expertise and sustainable solutions.

We are engineering tomorrow today, through more innovative products and services that will shorten lead times, enhance the quality of project delivery and, above all, provide cost-effective solutions.

We bring our extensive knowledge and experience to deliver value to our customers’ assets across all phases of the project lifecycle: » Advisory and design » Complex programme management » Operations and maintenance Speak to our Rail team today

01628 842444 www.costain.com

Scan here to discover why you should choose Costain

Over, under and across...

Editor Grahame Taylor grahame.taylor@railengineer.uk

Production Editor

We feature bridges and tunnels along with level crossings this month - coincidentally, all ways of crossing a railway. Just to the south of Lichfield there is a bridge under construction that will serve a new industrial estate. It replaces a narrow structure on a minor road that petered out in a field. But many centuries ago this had been a major highway.

Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

Engineering writers chris.parker@railengineer.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.uk collin.carr@railengineer.uk david.bickell@railengineer.uk david.shirres@railengineer.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.uk mungo.stacy@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

Devan Karsan devan@rail-media.com Jolene Price

jolene@rail-media.com

Rail Engineer Rail Media House, Samson Road, Coalville Leicestershire, LE67 3FP, UK. Telephone:

01530 816 444

Fax:

01530 810 344

Email:

hello@rail-media.com

Website:

www.railengineer.uk

Editorial copy 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

Our piece on the Moulsford viaduct, a structure built by Brunel and widened and imitated by the late Victorians, illustrates to non-structural engineers that it’s never wise to assume anything about how a brick or masonry structure is constructed. Many of these structures were built using techniques learnt over the centuries that were intended to reduce weight, materials and, of course, cost. Moulsford is not solid. It’s full of voids and inspecting them properly is the sort of work detailed

by Graeme Bickerdike in his review of inspection techniques. From the ordinary to the exotic, all railway structures have to be inspected and maintained.

Graeme has been to see how it’s done.

Collin Carr has looked in depth at developments in Network Rail’s management of all their assets. And it’s the ‘all’ that is most significant. Pulling together information, much of it in real time, gives engineers the ability to make both strategic and current decisions based on accurate and remote information sources. This is bold systems integration.

OK, we’ve looked at the Norton bridge diversion works before, but more in the planning and the setting out stages. Stuart Marsh went to see the project with the major works really underway. Bridges, road diversions, cut, fill and even track being laid. We’ll soon be reporting on its completion and commissioning - a major landmark in the upgrading of the WCML. As electrification spreads, it encounters the obstacles that have always got in the way - the tunnels. In Scotland, David Shirres tells us what has been necessary to electrify through Winchburgh tunnel, just east of Linlithgow on the route out of Edinburgh Waverley. The works are, in a word, extensive. And this means the closure of the route for some 44 days while the whole structure has been excavated and a new slab track installed.

Chris Parker takes a look at the near-antipodean equivalent to Thameslink which is under way on Auckland. There aren’t many people in New Zealand and most of them seem to be in the capital, which is bursting at the seams. Thameslink doesn’t have to worry about many level crossings. Fancy being a motorist being held for forty minutes out of an hour behind barriers?

Paul Darlington has been looking at how PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) are changing the way that level crossings operate. And it’s not just PLCs.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

5

GRAHAME TAYLOR

Lichfield.

OD (obstacle detection), a form of RADAR, can bring additional safety to crossings that would otherwise need human surveillance. Equipment tests have been intriguing, involving an off-site level crossing. No railway, no trains, just the crossing equipment.

This was exactly the approach adopted by Howells Railway Products in their joint investigation with Network Rail into level crossing power pack performance. It’s all part of a realisation that railway equipment doesn’t always have to be installed on a railway for it to undergo, at least, initial testing. Setting up in a car park can rattle out plenty of bugs before any need to go near an expensive and hazardous railway. It’s called innovation.

In the sometimes staid environment of the railway industry it must come as a shock to be told to present your new idea to an audience in just two minutes.

It’s known as an ‘Elevator Pitch’. Clive Kessell went to the Railway Industry Association’s 15th Innovation workshop and saw 17 poor souls go through this modern form of torture. But, with so many entries it does show that innovation on the railway is alive and well. As always though, having the ideas is the easy bit...

The aim of the IoRW’s (Institute of Rail Welding) 2015 Technical Seminar was to keep the industry informed of all the latest welding developments. Chris Parker went along to this, the 24th annual session. After so many years, what developments are left to be discovered?

Quite a few, by all accounts. There are new methods of detecting cracks, head wash repairs, better ways of igniting portions, and many more.

Make no mistake, the competitors in the annual Institution of Mechanical Engineers Railway Challenge have to work very hard. They don’t just have to build a working 10¼” gauge locomotive. They have to build something that satisfies some pretty strict rules and something that survives unforgiving test conditions.

David Shirres has been off to see them perform and to witness the triumphs and the catastrophes. But all strength to them. Testing and commissioning prototypes is never a picnic!

And don’t forget there’s still time to send in your photos to our photography competition. The prize is a Tornado 350 smartphone that our own Susie O’Neill reviews for us this month in her debut article for Rail Engineer. Welcome Susie!

6

NEWS

Rail Engineer • August 2015

New station gateway opens A glaze-tiled underpass that runs beneath a disused part of Rochdale Station has been returned to service after a 36-year descent into dilapidation. It provides users of the new park and ride facility on Hare Street, on the station’s south side, with an easy access route either to the main-line platforms or nearby Metrolink tram stop.

The 40-yard passageway welcomed its first passengers in April 1889 when the town’s station was moved to its existing site and enlarged, enabling the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway to deal with increasing passenger

numbers. King George V and Queen Mary visited in 1913.

But traffic began to dwindle in the Sixties and its six platforms were reduced to three in 1979, prompting closure of the underpass. Since then it has

been fenced off and reclaimed by nature.

Its reopening complements both the Northern Hub scheme, which involves an additional platform being constructed at Rochdale, and the local council’s masterplan for the station gateway area, enhancing accessibility for rail and Metrolink users with wider physical improvements.

Many heritage features of the

t: 0845 463 8680 e: admin@paint-inspection.co.uk w: www.paint-inspection.co.uk

REACHING NEW HEIGHTS

IN COATING INSPECTION We can help with: Coating condition and corrosion surveying Paint testing and analysis Surface preparation inspection and testing Paint inspection and testing Online IRIS reporting Nationwide coverage

CALL NOW for further details or visit the website

original underpass have been retained and restored, notably the iron bridge spans, stonework and tiling. The railings and lamp fittings have been chosen to fit sympathetically with their surroundings. A York stone floor has also been installed, together with a new drainage system.

The renovation has been funded by Transport for Greater Manchester, Rochdale Borough Council and Network Rail.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

7

UNIQUE | STUNNING | EVOCATIVE | ATMOSPHERIC | BESPOKE | CR EATIVE | TR USTED | DEDICATED | COLLABOR ATIVE | TECHNICAL

INSIDE OUT TIME LAPSE PRODUCTIONS are a group of skilled and creative technicians who specialise in capturing your project using time lapse and innovative filming methods, before turning it into a beautiful production.

SHORT & LONG TERM TIME LAPSE

ON THE GROUND FILMING

We pride ourselves on discreet on the ground filming, reliable time lapse installations and expertly creative post production techniques, providing exquisite results that you’ll be proud to share.

FILM EDITING & PRODUCTION

www.iotimelapse.co.uk | 0115 9791719 |

@insideoutgrp

Inside Out Time Lapse Productions is a trading division of Inside Out Group (Europe) Ltd

Dura Platform 190x130mm ad.qxd:Layout 1 23/06/2015 22:08 Page 1

Dura Platform

Composite Structural Station Platforms AVY DUTY HE

Spans up to 3.4m @ 5kN/m2

CO N

S NG

CO N

AVY DUTY HE

S NG

ALED FIXI CE

L

F

ALED FIXI CE

T INSTALL AS

T INSTAL AS

DRAINA G SY

E

EA

F

E

E

+44 (0)1255 423601 enquiries@duracomposites.com www.duracomposites.com

Concealed Fixing System Fast Install Minimises Track Time Incorporates Fall for Drainage

Install by Hammond (ECS) Ltd at Needham Market

A Y DR INAG AS

Welcome to the game changing rail plaform solution designed to save time and money throughout the supply chain. The unique patented design provides contractors with a system that overcomes many of today’s challenges such as drainage, surface mounted fixings, irregular lines, colour fade, cable management and most of all station disruption.

...designed for the future Industrial

Rail

Marine

Landscaping

Architectural

8

NEWS

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Crossrail’s island becoming marshland

A

s the tunnelling phase of Crossrail draws to an end, a novel construction project using the tunnel spoil is also reaching fruition.

The Wallasea Island Wild Coast project, located eight miles north of Southend-on-Sea in Essex, aims to transform 670 hectares of farmland, an area about 2.5 times the size of the City of London, back into the coastal marshland it once

was some 400 years ago.

Over three million tonnes of excavated material from Crossrail, has been used to raise part of the island by an average of 1.5 metres, creating lagoons and other wildlifefriendly features and protecting

Powering Hazardous Environments

Robust and reliable switchgear for railways Over 200 PSP installations throughout the UK rail network

• Principal Supply Points (PSP’s) • Auxiliary Supply Points (ASP’s) • Functional Supply Points (FSP’s) • Trackside Cubicles • Transformers Supplying a full service offering from design and manufacturing to installation and maintenance

Call +44 (0)114 286 6000 www.baldwinandfrancis.com

these areas with new sea-walls.

The first phase of the project was completed recently when the new sea walls of ‘Cell 1’ were successfully breached to allow for tidal flow into the marshland.

Four hundred years ago there were 30,000 hectares of intertidal saltmarsh along the Essex coast.

Now there are just 2,500 hectares.

Intertidal saltmarsh is a crucial wildlife habitat for a wide variety of

plants, invertebrates and birds, and acts as an effective sea defence for local communities.

By 2025, the RSPB’s Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project plans to have created 148 hectares of mudflats, 192 hectares of saltmarsh, and 76 acres of shallow saline lagoons. Around eight miles of coastal walks and cycle routes will allow people to get closer to the island’s spectacular wildlife.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Macrete Macrete NCENCE 1-2 page 1-2 page Feb Feb 15-paths.indd 15-paths.indd 1 1

27/01/2015 27/01/2015 14:23 14:23

Rail Insurance suited to you

Is your Insurance Renewal Date in the next 3-6 months?

Look at what we have achieved : • Birmingham based £10m turnover rail labour supply/ rail safety company - saved 37% off their premiums = £26,000 • Corby based £50m turnover concrete/ civils contractor in rail - saved 42% off their premiums = £178,000 • Hatfield based £14m turnover rail signalling /civils contractor - saved 52% off their premiums = £44,000

WE INSURE

WHY US?

• • • • • •

• • • • • •

RRV and Plant companies 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

Specialist rail knowledge NEBOSH/Safety approach producing lower premiums Contractual Liability checking Better technical advice We are passionate about rail!

Specialist rail safety consultancy site audits funded by insurers

Plan early and call Keven Parker on 07816 283949 / 0121 452 8717 / 0207 983 9039 or email Keven.parker@jobson-james.co.uk

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

9

Permanent Way Institution

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage.

10

NEWS

Rail Engineer • August 2015

LOTRAIN unveiled Transport for London has placed a contract for 45 new four-car trains for London Overground.

The LOTRAIN project aims to increase passenger capacity and reduce travel times on key Overground routes.

The new trains represent the first order for Bombardier’s new

Aventra platform other than the 65 nine-car sets already on order for Crossrail. However, the new London Overground trains are not only shorter but also differ in detail from those for Crossrail. Each car will

be 20 metres long as opposed to Crossrail’s 22-23, and the interiors will be arranged differently. Once again maintenance is part of the package.

31 of the four-car trains will go into operation on West Anglia routes from London Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, Cheshunt and Chingford, and between

Romford and Upminster. The remaining 14 four-car trains will enter service on current London Overground routes which include Gospel Oak to Barking, due to be electrified by 2017, and Euston to Watford. The new trains are expected to enter into passenger service between December 2017 and October 2018.

TRANSFORMERS TRANSFORMERS

STRUCTURAL PRECAST FOR RAILWAYS

TRANSFORMER RECTIFIERS

TRANSFORMER RECTIFIERS Trans-Tronic Trans-Tronic www.trans-tronic.co.uk

In collaboration with In collaboration with Network RailNetwork Rail We have a range of for Railway Signalling We have a range of products forproducts Railway Signalling Minimal inrush — verified Minimal inrush — verified

Class I & Class II ranges—all Class I & Class II ranges—all fully certifiedfully certified Full Classtransformer II Auxillary transformer now approved Full Class II Auxillary now approved Over 40 years supplying Over 40 years expertise in expertise supplyingin the Railway the Railway with highly products engineered products with highly engineered manufacturing SustainableSustainable manufacturing Extended offers Multiple Outputs Extended range offersrange Multiple Outputs

Legacy and ultra-low inrush versions Legacy version andversion ultra-low inrush versions being approved being approved High Efficiency—up to 97% High Efficiency—up to 97% Environment Friendly Environment Friendly

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

Backward compatibility with class I products—no Backward compatibility with class I products—no special brackets required special brackets required products are competitively andquality. of very high quality. full range Our products Our are competitively priced and of priced very high Our full rangeOur of Class I & of Class I & Classproducts II approved products can bewebsite. seen on our data sheets also Class II approved can be seen on our Full website. technical Full datatechnical sheets also available.

Callrequirements. us with your requirements. available. Call us with your

Formerly:

Formerly:

Telephone: +44 (0) 1246 264260

Email: sales@trans-tronic.co.uk

Trans-Tronic Ltd, Whitting Valley Road, Old Whittington, Chesterfield Derbyshire S41 9EY

Carillion celebrated success at the Network Rail Partnership Awards 2015, winning categories for: •

Sustainable Excellence – Our Thameslink team worked with the community enhancing the reputation of the industry

•

Best Collaboration – Collaborating with partners our Reading station team ensured safety was at the heart of the project.

•

Best project (medium) – Providing a cost-effective and sustainable solution at Chipping Campden

Contact us at www.carillionplc.com

12

Rail Engineer • August 2015

GRAHAME TAYLOR

Rail Engineer • August 2015

13

What you see is NOT necessarily what you get

14

Rail Engineer • August 2015

“Isambard, are you in there?”

I

t must have been a fairly straightforward remit. Nothing to trouble lateVictorian engineers. A river crossing. Not that wide. Not too high above the water either. What would be the natural solution for the 1890s? Drop a couple of cast iron caissons near the bank sides and lift in a whacking great warren truss girder bridge. Sounds like a simple job. Just like so many others being built all over the world at that time.

But there was a snag. This was a widening scheme. And the new bridge was to be built parallel to an existing structure. Again, this should not have been a problem. Widenings around this period were common. The railways were expanding. Extra tracks were needed.

Spot the difference

Hidden voids are accessed from the spandrels.

But there really was a snag - at least in some quarters of opinion.

The existing bridge had been built by Brunel. And even as the nineteenth century was closing there were those who were still in awe of the great engineer and the traditions that had been built around him. Despite much grinding of teeth, the directors of the Great Western Railway chose to build a replica brick and masonry structure alongside in homage to the great man. The second Moulsford viaduct over the Thames near Maidenhead was to be built as a carbon copy of the original structure.

Except that it wasn’t. Well, not an exact copy but enough to keep everyone happy.

The general configuration was the same. The materials were similar except that there wasn’t the same use of fancy stonework. When the bridge was opened in 1892, the engineers had kept their part of the bargain and life went on regardless.

But there were several other significant differences hidden away that would only come to light well over a century later.

For those who are unfamiliar with the building techniques of brick or masonry structures it may come as a surprise that what you see is not necessarily what you get. There is a similarity to the acronym wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) which surfaced in the early days

of computers. But it doesn’t apply here! What you see with a structure like Moulsford is an apparently solid structure.

There are no obvious holes anywhere. But, just as in the tradition of medieval cathedral building techniques, many bridges and viaducts are not solid. They are, in fact, full of holes. Not holes exactly, but voids and vaults, intentionally constructed with the primary purpose of saving materials, weight….. and money.

In abutments, for example, some of the voids were backfilled with loose rubble or have gradually filled up over the generations with ‘stuff’ that has washed down from above.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

15

Getting inside In Moulsford viaduct, the chambers were generally full of fresh(ish) air, were known about, were accessible and were examined as part of the formal inspection regime.

But up to now there has been a problem. Access to the chambers has been via small manholes that are located in the six foot. So, to carry out an inspection, either planned or for an emergency, both tracks on the viaduct have had to be blocked.

With increasing traffic, this has become untenable.

Whilst emergency inspections are rare, it is the nature of a structure that is over 150 years old that bits can fall off or become dislodged. This applies to internal parts of the structure just as it does to the facework. The tracks are supported on thick stone slabs that in turn are supported by diaphragm walls.

If there is a problem with the track, then there is a need to check whether the fault has a link with any deterioration below.

So, there was a need to access the voids another way - a way that did not involve taking possession of the tracks.

An obvious way would be to ‘knock a hole’ (form an opening) in a spandrel and link up all the voids. That would be reasonably straightforward, but at this point Network Rail had the same dilemma that their Victorian forebears faced. How can you possibly deface a Brunel structure? Well, there was a way, subject to all sorts of planning hoops, and it involved getting into the structure from the side generally hidden from view - the elevation that was between the old and ‘new’ structures.

Network Rail working with their designer Arup started work on the

project and, as Andy Crowley, Amco’s senior contracts manager, described: “An opening was formed into the chambers from the outside and we were able to move between the honeycomb of voids through preexisting arched openings.”

There wasn’t a great deal of room, but at least the whole structure could be examined without any interference to rail traffic above.

Access to the openings is now via purpose-made gantries hidden from view, designed and supplied by Dura Composites.

Delivering Excellence in Railway Engineering Providing multi-disciplinary Providing multi-disciplinary railway engineeringsolutions solutions railway engineering across the UK rail network across the UK rail network

Safety | Professionalism | Innovation | Respect | Integrity | Teamwork www.amco-construction.co.uk | T: 01226 243413 | E: info@amco.co.uk

16

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Similar, but different The project also involved a similar exercise with the parallel ‘new’ structure. It too had voids and these too were accessed via manholes between the tracks.

Apart from the generally cosmetic differences between the structures it was assumed that they were otherwise structurally similar.

But, came the time to knock the hole (form an opening) in the spandrel into a void, what was discovered?

Brickwork! And more brickwork. Void there was none.

And so this was living proof that those later Victorian builders were given a free hand with what they could do inside the new structure.

Make it look the part, but just get the structure up as quickly and as cheaply as possible and, if it means having a chamber configuration that differs from Brunel’s system of voids linked

To the interior.

by elegantly formed stone arches, then so be it.

And that was the nature of the beast throughout the second structure. Narrow chambers and no stone arches.

Apart from dealing with a site prone to flooding, just working in the narrow confines of each structure prompted the need to take unusual precautions.

The voids were, of course, confined spaces within the meaning of the legislation and the Fire Brigade was brought in to assist with site training.

Some of the voids were so restrictive that rescue issues needed input from mountain rescue experts - although Maidenhead isn’t renowned for its mountainous terrain. They were brought in from somewhere far more hilly.

The project started in October 2014 and is due to be finished in the latter part of 2015 depending on emerging issues in the 1890 structure. In addition to general repairs and the provision of a new waterproofing and drainage system, those voids particularly inaccessible will be stabilised with foam concrete.

All this is out of sight and, whilst it has been carried out on a specific historic piece of infrastructure, many of the techniques are applicable throughout the railway network.

Apart from detailing an intriguing project on a pair of Victorian structures, perhaps this article will prompt engineers to look at brick or masonry structures in a different way.

They are not always as solid as they first appear. What you see really is not necessarily what you get.

Is your track smart?

Critical Rail Temperature Monitoring

www.railtempmate.com

Immediate and continuous access to critical rail temperature data • Removes the need for manual, on-track measurements • Optimises resource management • Reliability, accuracy and repeatability • Rapid response to changeable weather systems • Innovative and state-of-the-art in built communications platform

Available for sale or hire Next day delivery +44 (0)161 797 5511

Network Rail Product Approval Number: PA05/05507

18

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Lichfield’s ancient industrial access road

H

ere at Rail Engineer we reckon to have our fingers on the pulse, our ears to the ground, our eyes on the ball, feet firmly on the floor, noses to the grindstone, backs to the wall... and so on and so on.

GRAHAME TAYLOR

But, despite all these contortions there are the odd occasions when a press release takes us by surprise - an image of somewhere blindingly obvious that has slipped under our radar, and all the other parts of our collective anatomy.

Industrial development

Haul road

So it was with some bonny photographs that arrived showing some 40 tonne bridge beams being lifted over the WCML near Lichfield. Now, Lichfield isn’t somewhere in the back of beyond, a remote wayside station visited only by the occasional nodding donkey (aka Class 142). No, this is a city in its own right with a Cathedral that had a pretty rough time during the Civil War and which has the distinctive three spires. (That’s the way it was built. This isn’t an example of a medieval investment ‘pause’. There never were four. The third one is in the middle with the other two at one end.)

Perhaps in mitigation we should state that these beams were being lifted as part of a bridge that isn’t going to belong to Network Rail. It’s all down to Staffordshire County Council (SCC) which is about to develop a nearly landlocked triangular portion of land between the WCML, the BJW line (that’s the line that crosses over the WCML and which heads off to Burton on Trent) and the A38 dual carriageway. This is the Liberty Park development to the east of the city. As we’ll see later, it’s a bridge with a very ancient history.

Up until Christmas 2014 it was possible to reach the land via a narrow jack-arched overbridge, but it was decided very early on in the project that this just didn’t have the capacity to take the heavy flow of full-sized articulated lorries that will inevitably serve an industrial development. It was too narrow and had weight limitations.

So SCC let a contract to Galliford Try under a highways framework contract, called the Midlands Highway Alliance, to carry out the removal of the old bridge and the construction of a new, wider structure on the same alignment over the WCML along with associated earthworks and access roads. Sunil Karra, Galliford Try’s project manager, was soon immersed in the complex, but positive, negotiations with Network Rail.

The old bridge was duly demolished in a 52 hour-possession over the Christmas period.

Once the bridge was gone, there was an access problem. The site of the Liberty Park could only be reached either over Hollands level crossing, an accommodation crossing on the BJW line, or via a bridge that passes under the A38 - a bridge that just goes to a farm and a field.

Negotiations to secure access over the level crossing proved ‘complicated’. Not wishing to increase risk at any level crossing, let alone a farm crossing, Network Rail resisted the application.

Thus it was that Galliford Try went the long way round and put in a 2½ km haul road from a country lane about 1km away to the east. The haul road skirted the WCML and the A38, tucking under the dual carriageway at the north end of the site and finally following the A38 back to the WCML. It was a long and dusty road, but served a purpose.

A cautionary tale Demolishing the bridge appeared to be a straightforward task. The bridge was relatively small and an easy target for the modern machinery supplied by S Evans and Sons, the demolition contractor. There were no significant services embedded in the structure.

But, nevertheless, it did pass over a four track electrified railway - and the railway wasn’t on the straight.

The technique of protecting the OLE without having to cut it used the tried and tested method of lowering and concealing the wires

galliford try Rail STATIONS

BRIDGES

DEPOTS

CIVIL ENGINEERING

MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING

TELECOMS

Banbury flood alleviation scheme for the Environment Agency.

We bring best value and a ‘one team’ approach to our projects and frameworks.

We leave a lasting legacy beyond the design and construction phases taking into consideration our projects’ whole lives, their maintenance and decommissioning stages, community engagement and local employment.

www.gallifordtry.co.uk

20

Rail Engineer • August 2015

under a demolition crash deck. On straight track this is relatively simple. On a curve there are precautions needed to stop the wiring landing up in the Coventry Canal.

Mike Lightwing, construction manager for Network Rail, tells a cautionary tale of not making quick assumptions at site meetings!

What appeared to be a normal earth return conductor fixed to the structure turned out, in fact, to be an auto-transformer feeder cable.

This required some careful management with Network Rail’s E&P design group coming up with a scheme that was installed by Colas Rail which also carried out all the OLE works on the possession.

Solid rock Over the Christmas 52-hour possession - one of many on the WCML, but one which had had little or no press coverage because it went well the old bridge was removed with the OLE being lowered and raised during eight-hour periods at the start and end of the possession.

With the bridge out of the way and the abutments taken down to cess level, footings for the new bridge were excavated behind the old abutments. Despite the proximity of rivers and a relatively flat area of terrain, bedrock is encountered at fairly shallow levels and thus the new bridge is founded on solid sandstone.

Short possessions were used for the erection of the abutment falsework, scaffolding and ‘high-street’ environment fencing. The main erection possessions were seven hours each on 28/29 June and 4/5 July. Twelve precast concrete beams manufactured by ABM Precast from Nottingham were lifted in with a 800 tonne crane supplied by Baldwins Crane Hire Ltd. Sunil recalls, “On each possession we had them all parked up by 10pm, counted them and made sure they were the right ones.”

Over the next few weeks there will be short possessions to seal the gaps between the beams which will allow concreting work and surfacing to be carried out without disturbing rail traffic.

And what of the new Liberty Park industrial complex? Well, it’s not there yet, but at least it can be reached via a bridge that is fit for purpose.

A link with the past Before we close, it’s worth looking at the arrangement of the roads at this site. The old bridge carried ‘Burton Old Road’ and yet, looking at the Ordnance Survey map, it’s obvious that the route passes well to the south of the city.

The answer to this apparent conundrum is that it wasn’t part of the present day road system. It harks back to a much earlier period.

In fact, it was Ryknild Street (or Icknield Street), a Roman road that served the major settlement of Letocetum. This site, looked after by The National Trust, is in the nearby parish of Wall to the South West. From Letocetum, the road

lies beneath (was demolished by) the BJW railway and follows a near perfectly straight alignment over (originally under!) the WCML before it is covered (was demolished again) by the BJW railway to the East of Lichfield Trent Valley station. It then carries on straight for the breweries of Burton on Trent and away via Derby to Templeborough near Rotherham.

Just every so often, our current perceptions of what is a static transport layout are disturbed in the most unlikely of locations. Now Burton Old Road will see a new flow of traffic having echoed to the tramp of Roman soldiers many centuries ago.

So it’s ironic that we didn’t see this one coming.

A connected future, full of possibility A future where everything works better together.

22

Rail Engineer • August 2015

ACCESS ALL AREAS B

ritain’s national railway network has evolved over the last 150 years plus. The network has over 40,000 bridges and tunnels that have to be inspected and maintained. Many of the structures are as diverse in size and complexity as they are almost inaccessible in the British countryside.

Normal inspection techniques cannot be used in many cases and this is where the Bridgeway Consulting Infrastructure Services team has provided innovative techniques to gain access.

Specialist access inspections The specialist access inspections team of Bridgeway Consulting presents its examiners and engineering staff new challenges to face every day, by carrying out the very important job of establishing the current condition of each of these structures.

All bridges, tunnels, retaining walls, culverts and sea defences require at least a visual examination every year, and then at different intervals, a full detailed (tactile) examination which requires access to every part of the structure.

The use of specialist access techniques for the examination of these structures requires an in-depth knowledge of roped access, diving and confined spaces to ensure that all examiners can safely gain access to parts of the structure. All examiners

and engineers carrying out these works are multi-skilled so that they not only have the competency to carry work out as trained structural examiners but, in addition, are HSE qualified divers, IRATA roped access trained and/or confined spaces trained.

Bridgeway has successfully examined some of the difficult access structures around Britain including Dinting, Mottram, Arnside and Leven Viaducts. To add to this, the company has examined a raft of famous structures on the River Thames (both above and below water) including the Hungerford, Richmond, Barnes and Kew bridges.

Hungerford Bridge, London After a previous successful inspection of the Hungerford Bridge, Bridgeway has again been appointed to carry out a detailed examination both above and below the River Thames.

In the interests of offering a value engineering solution to Network Rail, they suggested that a combined detailed and underwater examination would provide the client with better value for money.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

This meant a realignment of the anniversary dates for examinations but provided substantial reductions in the mobilisation costs for Port of London Authority permits, installation of span closure signs to the River Thames, dive platforms and safety boats in attendance for works.

The works involved the use of a self-propelled working platform vessel with a Spudpole that can anchor the vessel in effectively any location within the river to allow the greatest flexibility in access to the extensive bridge deck and superstructure.

In addition, this platform had a cherry picker (MEWP) mounted to the deck to allow the examining engineers access to as much of the bridge deck as possible and could also be used as a dive platform for the underwater examination team.

Much consultation and detailed planning with the Port of London Authority was required, to establish ‘span closures’ for the bridge, in one of the busiest navigable rivers in Europe.

Dinting and Mottram Viaducts, Derbyshire The task of tackling the detailed examination of these structures was formidable, from planning stages to the delivery of physical works on site, and in converting all the information into a single condition report.

Due to the complex nature of the bridge, the project and roped access managers were tasked with the problem of gaining safe access to the structures to maximise daylight working during the early stages of the summer months and longer days.

Following a site visit, the responsible managers established safe access both from above and below the deck providing a number of options for the site teams. Works commenced in May 2015 for both structures and involved the use of experienced IRATA Level 3, Level 2 and a number of Level 1 STE4 examiners.

The IRATA Level 3 Supervisors have extensive knowledge of advanced rigging and rescue

Engineering the future

ECOLOGY

GEOMATICS

SIGNALLING

ACCESS SERVICES

P-WAY

ROPE ACCESS

SI/GI

0115 919 1111

STRUCTURAL EXAMINATIONS

@

TRAINING

enquiries@bridgeway-consulting.co.uk

23

INTERESTING FACTS

24

Rail Engineer • August 2015

HUNGERFORD BRIDGE

(Charing Cross Rail Bridge)

The first Hungerford Bridge was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel and opened in 1845 as a suspension footbridge. Its name originated from the Hungerford Market.

In 1859, the original bridge was bought by South Eastern Railway and extended into the newly-opened Charing Cross station. The suspension bridge was replaced by a nine span wrought iron lattice girder structure designed by Sir John Hawkshaw.

The chains from Brunel’s bridge were re-used on Bristol’s Clifton Suspension Bridge.

The brick pile buttresses of Brunel’s footbridge are still in use.

In 2002, the existing footbridges were removed and replaced with the current four-metre wide footbridges. They have been named the ‘Golden Jubilee’ footbridges in honour of the 50th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s accession.

Total Length Height No. of spans

300 metres 10 metres above water level 7

DINTING AND MOTTRAM VIADUCTS Both the Dinting and Mottram Viaducts were originally opened in 1844, and form the modern day Glossop Branch Line (then known as the Woodhead line) which opened in December 1845, linking Sheffield to Manchester.

The original construction of the bridges used timber laminated arches, however, by 1856, the level of rail traffic and weight of traffic increased to the point that, in 1859, wrought iron girders were installed to replace the timber arches. In 1918, a further seven piers were added to Dinting as further strengthening was required following the increased use of coal trains and sheer volumes of traffic. A further three piers were added to Mottram, and the route was electrified in the 1950s.

In more recent times, Network Rail embarked on a major refurbishment of the bridge that included strengthening to the main girders, installation of new bearings, steelwork repairs and new paint to all metallic elements.

DINTING Total Length Height No. of spans

370 metres 36 metres 11 masonry arches plus five main spans (plus seven additional strengthening piers)

MOTTRAM Total Length Height No. of spans

155 metres 42 metres 3 (plus three additional strengthening piers)

techniques and implement a safe system of work for all roped access works. The Level 1 operatives have carried out extensive training that qualifies them to work at height, however, under strict supervision of the Level 3 Supervisor.

Bridgeway’s team was prepared for the challenges on both structures, not only the obvious physical demands but also the entry to the confined spaces within the two outer main external girders.

The team held numerous competencies including confined spaces training that allowed them to gain access to the part of the structures that may otherwise remain unseen, or at the very least not have had a ‘tactile’ examination carried out. All these hazards and risks were identified at the site visit stage and the project team were able to implement the appropriate control measures and ensure that the correct staff were available when necessary.

Both structures span a watercourse, and Bridgeway was able to use its internal diving and underwater department to mitigate with the risks of working at height and working over water! A safety boat and qualified HSE III diver/RYA Level II boat operative were on standby at all times below the roped access team to enable a rescue.

Dinting Viaduct, the larger of the two, posed additional challenges that required road closures with access to the deck via a MEWP, and some of the masonry spans examined with the assistance of a mobile aluminium scaffold tower.

Ricardo Rail Formerly Lloyd’s Register Rail

Lloyd’s Register Rail is now Ricardo Rail ▪ Independent assurance ▪ Technical consulting ▪ Performance engineering By combining Lloyd’s Register Rail’s technical and assurance expertise with Ricardo’s engineering capabilities, we are helping our clients to improve the safety, quality and performance of the world’s railways.

To find out how we can support your business email ricardorail@ricardo.com or visit:

rail.ricardo.com

Delivering Excellence Through Innovation & Technology

rail.ricardo.com

Rail Engineer • August 2015

up st an din g

26

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Our railways are carried by more than 42,400 individual spans, including a handful of timber-built survivors. Rarely given a second glance are 24,000 culverts. Embankments stretch collectively for almost 4,900 miles

whilst another 3,900 miles of line are in cuttings; 17,000 retaining walls help to keep both supported. And we also look after enough tunnels to form an underground railway from King’s Cross to Thirsk, 20 miles north of York.

e re Th by ur Fo y: ph ra og ot Ph

r be em m

e fin H

ave you ever pressed pause on your daily routine to consider how wonderfully rich the network is in terms of civil engineering? The scale is mindboggling. Yes, we’re all familiar with those attention-grabbing bridges across the Tamar, Tay and Forth, but they only occupy a few pixels in a vast, varied and vibrant picture. Take a step back to enjoy a broader view.

What’s even more remarkable is that, typically, those structures are visually examined annually and subjected to a physical examination once every six years. As we learned in February, that latter activity can involve roped access adventurers defying gravity and humanity’s natural instincts to bring insight from the most inhospitable of places, exposed on a high beam or within a confined space.

And beyond that baseline recording of condition, there is then a need to determine any impact on loading capacity, predict how that might change and the need for intervention. Helping to inform that process is a small army of structural engineers who combine on-site observation and measurement with professional judgement and calculation. But how do they go about that?

Seeking an overview, I sat down with Network Rail’s Mark Norman, alongside John Longthorne, Steve Browne and Ana Walpole from AECOM, a company holding Civils Assessment Framework Agreements across four routes. It was not a short meeting.

It’s not just iconic structures like the Tay Bridge that bring asset management challenges.

History lesson Notwithstanding the considerable sum invested over recent years, Network Rail’s civils asset base remains quite aged. Railway building reached its peak - albeit an unsustainable one - in the late 1840s, meaning many structures are now approaching 170 years old; the Skerne bridge in Darlington is 190. So it is clearly vital to have knowledge of their history, right back to the moment when shovels were first put in the ground, in order to establish a comprehensive management strategy.

The materials used in construction, the available finances, ground conditions, the experience of the workforce and how closely they were supervised all have a bearing on a structure’s ability to safely fulfil its role today. Those built during periods of war bring issues with them for all the above reasons. At a more granular level, if a crack in an arch barrel is known to be stable and longstanding, the associated risk is clearly less than with one that has just appeared. The past can therefore offer valuable context for what the eye now sees.

Where are we?

Asset management is influenced by a host of different factors, but the two fundamentals are condition and capacity. Understanding the former relies on a regime of examinations.

Detailed exams are undertaken at a frequency arrived at through risk assessment, typically every six years. Each one resets Network Rail’s understanding of a structure’s condition.

Involved is a full tactile survey, recording every defect and assigning them a rating by type and severity. From this, two measures are obtained: »» an overall SCMI (Structure Condition Marking Index) score, in a range from 0 to 100, indicating the structure’s sustainability (effectively, how close it is to end of life) »» a risk score, based on a 5x5 matrix, quantifying the structure’s resilience in terms of the likelihood and impact of a failure.

PHOTO: SPAN ENGINEERING

Rail Engineer • August 2015

27

Detailed examinations reset Network Rail’s understanding of a structure’s condition.

Annual visual examinations - generally carried out from ground level - serve the critical purpose of confirming that a structure remains in a safe condition. This is a relative test, comparing what’s currently seen against the absolute position recorded during the detailed exam. It enables the rate and extent of degradation to be tracked.

Number crunching Capacity reflects the ability of a structure to support both its own load and that of the traffic passing over it. This is established through an assessment, usually carried out every 18 years in accordance with the requirements of more than two dozen railway and highway standards.

Both measures are used to inform decisions around the need for, nature and urgency of an intervention. Simplistically, a risk score exceeding 12 or an SCMI below 40 could be regarded as tipping points, although these are far from hard and fast.

Brickwork repairs now recognise the need for consistency, rather than using over-strong materials.

There are three types: »» Level 0 requires the engineer to input parameters into a pre-designed spreadsheet which outputs the structure’s Route Availability (RA) rating. The parameters - describing dimensions, materials, condition etc - are used by macros, automated tasks within the spreadsheet, to perform a simple analysis of the structure. This level is used for common construction types and proves sufficient for most structures across the network. »» Level 1 requires the engineer to carry out a bespoke set of calculations by hand, perhaps because the structure is unusual in form or a more detailed analysis would be beneficial to achieve greater accuracy. »» Level 2 generally entails complex analysis to model the structure’s behaviour and requires a high degree of engineering competence.

This can prove time consuming - sometimes taking many months - but has the potential to unlock latent capacity.

It’s worth making the point that technology’s encroachment into this area only goes so far.

Today’s engineer might be able to do on a laptop what their predecessor did at great cost 30 years ago by logging into a university computer with

28

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Cloud burst surveys can show the deflection caused by a train as it moves across a brick structure.

punch cards, but that in no way lessens the skills needed to provide the right initial properties and accurately interpret the emerging results. A software tool is only as good as the person using it; there is no substitute for an intuitive understanding of load paths.

Negative influence Getting on for half of our underbridges are brick in construction. This is good news as the Victorians excelled at building arches. Generally they bring few problems, being immensely strong; where issues do arise, inappropriate repairs can be the cause. It might come as a surprise but we are still learning about arches. Until relatively recently, our instinct was to intervene with modern techniques and materials, however this often resulted in the formation of hard spots which create tension around their edges when a load is applied.

What shouldn’t be underestimated is the volume of data that has to be mined for assessments.

Water has to be carefully managed to ensure it doesn’t cause brickwork damage or corrosion.

We know now that consistency is key, allowing an arch to work as a homogenous structure in compression; its ability to move is fundamental in order to redistribute the thrust of a moving vehicle and deal with temperature fluctuation.

At almost 9,400 in number, our inventory of metallic underbridges (cast/wrought iron and steel) imposes far stiffer challenges from an assessment perspective, due to their complexity and material deficiencies. Every structural member has to be assessed, with the intention of confirming that each is capable of resisting the load

applied to it. That’s the basic equation. Where there are multiple members fulfilling the same function - cross girders, for example - the convention is only to assess the worst case as this will serve to limit the structure’s RA rating.

What shouldn’t be underestimated is the volume of data that has to be mined for assessments. The engineer will inspect the structure with different eyes to the examiner, looking for such things as torsional buckling, distortion, twist and distress. They will also record and measure areas of corrosion, recognising that section loss has a critical impact on load distribution.

Quality control was far from rigorous 150 years ago. Whilst there was a host of practical reasons for this, it has left the railway with an unwelcome legacy: yield strengths (the point at which a material begins to deform plastically) are quite variable.

To address this, a prescribed yield strength is adopted for each material type, arrived at through years of analysis. For railway purposes, the figure is lower-bound but, if necessary, can be revised upwards through sampling. With wrought iron, such were the shortcomings of the manufacturing process that a conservative approach is always taken. There can never be any confidence about its make-up.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

But whatever the material, one commonality with all structures is their susceptibility to the overarching power of water: brickwork to freeze-thaw action, steel to corrosion, piers to scour, tunnel linings to mortar loss, foundations to settlement, slopes to instability. Asset management is water management in a great many respects.

29

The Victorians excelled at building arches and, generally, they bring few problems.

Looking harder It is possible to find latent strength within a structure by gaining a deeper understanding of how it works. The method of achieving this, as part of a Level 2 assessment, is through a computational tool known as Finite Element Analysis. A mesh is generated based on the physical characteristics of the structure, potentially comprising many thousands of linked cells; each one of these is then assigned a set of properties and an algorithm applied which calculates how they interact on loading. Results can

be output as a coloured model showing the movement of that load through the structure, with the associated stresses, strains and displacements.

The process is highly sophisticated and, despite modern computing power, can often take many hours

to run for larger models. But the benefits can be considerable, perhaps demonstrating that a structural member has more capacity than previously determined because its behaviour was not fully understood, or revealing the source of stress concentrations that were

causing a beam to buckle. Such insight - including the ability to model imperfections, deformations and damaged members - leads to more informed judgements, allowing a targeted repair to be designed or precluding the need for one altogether.

At Aquarius Railroad Technologies echnologies we believe in making everyday railway maintenance tasks simpler & safer.

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

R See A w IL us w. 2 a ra 0 t il1 5. 15 c

w

Jon Tancock TTancock,, STME, Network Rail, Plymouth

Transporting 3.5 tonnes from Road to Rail to Site with the R2R 4x4 & R2R Plant Trailer.

See details at www.railrover.com

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

To hire call 01765 635021 or email abi.broadley@railrover.com

om

30

Rail Engineer • August 2015

whether a structure’s movement is within the range expected through assessment, and take action on that basis.

Making your mind up Beyond the evidence now collected, the engineer’s recommendation will still rely heavily on their expertise and judgement; the Structures Policy is not prescriptive. The investment decision itself remains with Network Rail’s asset management team. Often it’s clear cut; sometimes a whole-life cost model is run to

Now what?

Based on the The choice between renewal or findings of the recurrent strengthening/repair is assessment and influenced by many factors. examinations, the engineer will recommend a preferred form of intervention for each structure, if needed. Providing a framework for this are the criteria set out within Network Rail’s Structures Policy, encompassing: »» the criticality of the route and likely future usage »» the ease of access, both in terms of traffic volumes and physical constraints For the most part, remote monitoring has »» structure type, capacity, overall condition and limited value with a structure built many decades risk score ago as you can’t see long-term trends. As a result, »» the nature, location and severity of the defects there’s not a lot of it about. There is though a »» capital and whole-life costs. case for deployment where degradation rates are significant or the operational use of an end-of-life All these factors influence the respective asset needs to be extended for a short period. benefits of renewal against recurrent There has also been a move to fit monitoring on strengthening or repair, and the associated swing bridges following major refurbishments, timescales. due in part to temperature change causing cyclic The word “intervention” has the potential to expansion/contraction. mislead, as it does not necessarily involve physical Technological capability in this area is evolving works. The recommendation might be to invoke a all the time to the extent that, with a cloud burst higher level of assessment, increase examination survey, it is possible to see the progressive frequency or carry out on-site testing, installing deflection of a brick-arched structure as a train strain gauges and deflection poles to measure a passes over, right down to individual bogies. This structure’s real behaviour under traffic loading. can help in gaining a better understanding of

seek the optimum solution. Either way, the approach has to be sustainable, ensuring the structure is able to withstand its anticipated future loading.

However broad-brush this article has been, you begin to wonder how our asset management regime can possibly function without almost unlimited resources, given the number of structures out there and the challenges that come with them. The majority, of course, are very simple, in perfectly serviceable condition and don’t demand much attention. But they all get some attention. So when you’re next on a platform, stop and appreciate the mundane overbridge just beyond the ramp. It might look like a constant, but its appearance belies the wealth of variables being tested behind the scenes.

44 32

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Winchburgh’s

DAY BLOCKADE

A

(Right) Track and formation removed to reveal the tunnel invert.

legacy of the rapid early growth of Britain’s railway network is that the UK has one of the world’s most restrictive loading gauges. As a result, typically half of the cost of British electrification projects is the civil engineering work to adapt structures to provide clearance for wires and pantographs.

The £742 million Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project (EGIP) will electrify the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line that carries around 20,000 passengers each day and is Britain's busiest inter-urban route (one that does not go to London). The line opened in 1842 and its electrification requires work at almost all of its original structures.

Inevitably, the scale of this work brings disruption to both rail passengers and road users.

With clever construction techniques, the railway closures associated with bridge replacements can be limited to long weekends. However, increasing clearances in tunnels is a different matter as the logistics of such work may require a rail closure of a matter of weeks or longer.

For example, the tunnel at Farnworth, near Bolton, is closed for five months whilst the tunnel-boring machine increases its diameter (issue 127, May 2015).

As part of EGIP electrification, Winchburgh tunnel, just east of Linlithgow on the route out of Edinburgh Waverley, required track lowering up to 200 mm and the installation of slab track at a cost of £17 million. This is an essential element of the Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification, which will transform train services across Scotland’s central belt.

Leading the way with modular slab track installations Bringing engineering excellence to slab track installations One of the leading and most innovative suppliers of high performance, ballastless superstructures Superb flexibility and cost efficiency due to modular design Excellent installation capabilities under difficult conditions Prefabication to the highest quality providing outstanding durability Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group I Unit 2 Sarah Court Yorkshire Way I DN3 3FD, Doncaster T +44 300 3030230 I info@rhomberg-sersa.co.uk I www.rhomberg-sersa.com

33

Rail Engineer • August 2015 TO FIFE

DAVID SHIRRES

MAIN EDINBURGH-GLASGOW SERVICE TERMINUS

LINLITHGOW

DUNBLANEEDINBURGH SERVICE

BUS SERVICE TO EDINBURGH

WINCHBURGH TUNNEL

DALMENY JUNCTION EDINBURGH WAVERLEY

GLASGOW-EDINBURGH MAIN LINE

EDINBURGH PARK MORE/LONGER TRAINS TO GLASGOW QUEEN ST LL

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO GLASGOW CENTRAL

HAYMARKET

34

Rail Engineer • August 2015 Unavoidable severe disruption As a result, Scotland’s busiest line was blocked for 44 days between Linlithgow and Edinburgh where there was no straightforward diversionary route. This entailed severe disruption that was partly mitigated by starting the diversion on 13 June to take advantage of the holiday season and ensuring the line was open in time for the Edinburgh Festival.

During the tunnel closure, through passengers were encouraged to use other routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow on which there were some extra trains. Dunblane to Edinburgh trains continued to run via Linlithgow and the Fife lines after reversing at Dalmeny. As these trains did not provide sufficient capacity for commuters to Edinburgh at the

(Above) Over half way Up line slab track complete base slabs cast on Down line.

eastern end of the line, replacement buses were provided between Linlithgow and Edinburgh - increasing the journey time from 22 minutes to over an hour. In the event, the buses ran empty as commuters turned to their cars.

Unfortunately, there was no way of avoiding this significant disruption.

Critics pointed out that it would not have occurred had the Dalmeny chord in the original EGIP plan been provided (issue 104, June 2013). Yet, with two grade separated-junctions, this chord would have cost £175 million and could only have carried a small proportion of Edinburgh to Glasgow traffic as the Fife lines are heavily trafficked.

What was done before the Winchburgh blockade was to complete a signaling upgrade on the route between Edinburgh and Fife for which a £16 million contract had been

Rail Engineer • August 2015

35

awarded to Siemens in January. This included replacing 3-aspect with 4-aspect signals between Dalmeny and Edinburgh and the installation of six new signals on the Forth Bridge. As a result, diverted trains could reverse at Dalmeny without disruption to the train service.

Winchburgh’s problems Winchburgh tunnel lies at the eastern end of a fivekilometre long cutting. It is 338 metres long and was opened in 1842, having taken two years to complete.

When digging the cuttings and tunnel, the contractor, Gibb and Sons, removed 200,000 tons more rock than expected and consequently made a loss.

The tunnel was cut through dolerite rock, mudstone and shale. In the middle on the nineteenth century, these oil shale deposits once made West Lothian one of the world’s biggest oil producers. This shale was also a factor in an unfortunate accident during tunnel construction in 1839 when a man was severely burnt by firedamp.

The cutting is crossed by two streams, west of the tunnel. A twin four-foot diameter cast-iron inverted syphon was provided to carry Myers Burn under the railway. Swine Burn crosses the cutting on an aqueduct that had to be re-decked as part of the EGIP electrification works. Downstream of the aqueduct is a pumping station, which drains the cutting west of the tunnel. This is an area with significant drainage issues, some of which are addressed by the tunnel works.

The tunnel has a pointed roof profile and had a narrow six foot (1571 mm) which the tunnel works marginally increased to 1605 mm. Lowering the track by up to

Slab track system ÖBB-PORR - cross section and top view.

200 mm, together with the use of a Furrer+Frey Rigid Overhead Conductor Rail System (ROCS), was just sufficient to provide the required electrification clearance.

To ensure this clearance is maintained the track has to be fixed in position requiring the installation of slab track. This will significantly reduce track maintenance in the tunnel and increase speed through the tunnel from 80 to 90 mph.

The Austrian Solution The principal contractor Morgan Sindall chose the ÖBBPORR Austrian slab track system for the Winchburgh project. This is its first use on the UK rail network although it had been trialled on the Old Dalby test track in Asfordby tunnel (Rail Engineer June 2014). The system was jointly developed by Austrian Railways (ÖBB) and Allgemeine

Expertise across rail infrastructure, construction and design Morgan Sindall is a major provider of multidisciplined projects to the rail industry collaboratively bringing together the strengths of the customer, community, supply chain and ourselves to successfully deliver a sustainable rail infrastructure through:

Delivery

• • • • • • •

Civil engineering Building and construction Tunnelling - TBM and SCL Stations Fit-out and M&E services Overhead line electrification Rail systems.

Morgan Sindall Euston Station 10th Floor 1 Eversholt Street London NW1 2DN T 0207 383 5730

morgansindall.com

@morgansindallci

MS5117

MS5117_Advert_Rail Engineering_V3.indd 1

23/07/2015 09:33:47

36

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Baugesellschaft - A. Porr. It was first used in 1992 and since 1995 has been Austria’s standard slab track system. Since 2001, it has also been widely used in Germany where the Erfurt to Leipzig high speed line used 180 km of the slab track. There is now around 580 km of the ÖBB-PORR Austrian slab track in use.

The principal element of the system is a 160 mm thick concrete base plate that has eight pairs of track fastenings. There are three different plates for straight track and different curves. The base plates are secured on a suitable flat base by self-compacting concrete (SCC) that is poured through 640 mm square tapered openings in the base plate after it has been accurately positioned. The SCC reinforcement and 80 mm thick support blocks are first placed on the flat base, which is sufficiently flexible to be positioned using the five jacking screws in the base plate.

The base plate incorporates an elastic rubber coating which absorbs vibration. This coating also serves as a barrier between the base plate and the SCC. This enables the SCC to be easily broken out and the base plate removed in the event of derailment damage. This can be done in a matter of hours once rails are removed.

44-day track transformation The main contractor for the Winchburgh tunnel works was Morgan Sindall who secured a £113 million position on the £250 million alliancing contracts for EGIP infrastructure works that Network Rail awarded in November. The work started with the establishment of a large compound at the eastern end of the tunnel, which took five weeks. After the compound was established, two weeks were spent installing new track drainage either side of the tunnel during disruptive possessions. Then it was time to install the slab track during the 44-day blockade.

Other tunnel work during the blockade included a new drainage system, installed at invert level next to the base slabs, and the installation of fixings for the conductor rail system that is to be fitted later as part of the electrification works. About 10 square metres of brickwork needed repairs, but otherwise the tunnel lining was generally in good condition.

Although the project required no work on signals, tunnel wall mounted cable supports were provided to lift cables from the trackbed.

Tunnel logistics required that one track be available at all times for the supply and removal of the large amount of material. Thus, it was not possible to work simultaneously on both lines.

The plant movements for handling this volume of material, adjacent to work undertaken in such a confined area, required a detailed work plan to prevent conflicts and delays.

A robust site-specific safety regime was implemented which included special rules for plant movements, health screening for Weil’s disease and extractor fans. These were provided by Factair who also undertook air quality monitoring.

The first track to be lifted was the Up line.

The track, ballast and formation was typically 1.2 metres deep and removal of this material revealed the tunnel invert for probably the first time since the tunnel was built. The invert

itself had then to be treated to remove loose mudstone and high dolerite rock outcrops. Steel dowels were then fixed into the base rock to secure the concrete base slabs.

On the fifth day of the blockade, the first base slab was poured. It took five more days to pour all the base slabs which varied in depth from the minimum allowable 150 mm to 600 mm where a large amount of mudstone had been removed.

By day nine, the first base plates had been positioned outside the tunnel mouth. To provide a transition to ballasted track there is 70 metres of slab track outside the tunnel. The usually problematic ballast to slab interface was overcome by installing the Rhomberg Sersa V-TRAS Module, also first trialled by Network Rail on the Old Dalby test track in Asfordby Tunnel (Rail Engineer June 2014) which offers a long term maintenance free transition solution, giving each line a total of 470 metres of slab track.

Drainage and permanent way works were undertaken by sub-alliance partner Babcock which also cast the base slabs and procured the services of Rhomberg Sersa, the licensed installers of the ÖBB-PORR Austrian slab track.

It took two days to accurately position all the slabs on one line. When there were sufficient slabs in place, 110-metre length rails were fitted on them to ensure accurate positioning.

Watertight formwork was needed as the self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is very fluid.

After the SCC pour, it took 24 hours before the track could carry traffic. The slab track was then complete and the process was ready to be repeated for the down line. A press release on 4 July, and visit from the Scottish Transport Minister, confirmed that the work was on target at this halfway point.

The Winchburgh improvements almost eliminate maintenance in the tunnel, increase the speed through it and significantly reduce the

Rail Engineer • August 2015

37

flood risk. The work required the removal of 2,000 cubic metres of spoil, casting of 1,200 cubic metres of concrete, removal of 200 tonnes of rock, reworking 825 metres of drainage and the installation of 188 five - metre slab base plates. All this work required a total of 80,000 man-hours of work.

More to come Doing all this work in 44 days is a worthy achievement.

However, it was not likely to impress most commuters affected by the six-week Winchburgh blockade work who were more concerned with their journey to work.

Communicating why this work was necessary and what it entailed was a significant challenge. It involved a big campaign by both Network Rail and ScotRail that included use of social media to engage with those affected and give good detailed information about the work.

A similar campaign will be required next year when the line’s commuters face another blockade when the tunnel into Queen Street Station will be closed for 20 weeks as its 40-year-old slab track is deteriorating. The ÖBB-PORR Austrian slab track system is also to be installed in this 1.9km long tunnel.

While this is not strictly part of the electrification works, as the tunnel already has the required clearances, it forms a precursor to the extensive remodelling of Queen Street high-level station. This cramped terminus is to be extended with longer platforms that are an essential part of the electrification scheme. Phil Verster, managing director of the ScotRail/Network Rail alliance, considers that the new station will be stunning and “on a par with St Pancras or King’s Cross”.

Electric trains will start running between Edinburgh and Glasgow in December 2016. The forthcoming electrification is evident from the masts starting to appear along the line along with extended platforms. Most of this work is being done at night with no disruption to passengers.

Unfortunately, the route’s tunnels are another matter, so its commuters face unfortunate disruption before they see their electric trains. Then they will have a more resilient network with the faster, longer trains needed to accommodate growing passenger numbers. So the few weeks’ disruption at Winchburgh was an unavoidable part of transforming central Scotland’s train services.

Delivering track base plates to the tunnel.

VTRAS - slab to ballast transition module Bringing engineering excellence to slab track installations Prefabricated, precision made, floating support provides even distribution of different settlement of sub and superstructures.

Simple, integrated and sustainable structure acts like a cushioning pontoon bridge between slab track and ballast roadbeds.

Universal usage irrespective of whatever types of track construction involved.

Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group I Unit 2 Sarah Court Yorkshire Way I DN3 3FD, Doncaster T +44 300 3030230 I info@rhomberg-sersa.co.uk I www.rhomberg-sersa.com

38

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Asset Management Developing a data driven Railway

R

COLLIN CARR

ail Engineers understand that, to manage, maintain and renew a cost-effective, efficient and modern railway system, it is imperative to identify all infrastructure assets, where they are located and most importantly, what condition they are in.

That sounds quite straight forward, doesn’t it?

It’s certainly reasonable to assume that all this information is available, otherwise the industry would not have been able to cope with the growth and development that it has experienced over the last decade or so.

Now, here comes the inevitable but…how is this data gathered and is it easily accessible and efficiently produced using the benefits of modern technology?

The answer is, of course, no it isn’t - at least not yet. There must be hundreds of different databases, each with its own acronym, that exist up and down the network. The majority exist in their own technical silos, focusing on specific aspects of the infrastructure with limited ability to align with other aspects. For the maintainer, this means that planning is often convoluted and unnecessarily complex. Different priorities are often generated by the different systems, so it is not always clear what the true priority is for the whole system.

Working toward a data-driven railway The good news is that Network Rail understands that this is both a problem and a great opportunity. The infrastructure owner is embarking on an enterprising and radical journey to move from the position described above to one where these huge banks of data are absorbed and captured into a national intelligence model, one that can serve a datadriven railway in a cohesive, safe and cost effective manner.

Well, that sounds like a quite straightforward task, doesn’t it? Again the answer, of course, is no, otherwise it would have been done already, but Network Rail has certainly grasped the nettle and is beginning to make significant inroads and progress.

To start with, Network Rail already has a whole host of asset management systems, both under development and in use, which call on cuttingedge technology. One example is the Plain Line Pattern Recognition (PLPR) high-speed trains

that have been introduced recently. Two of these trains recently covered and inspected 6,000 miles of continuously welded rail (CWR) track in four weeks and there are plans to extend coverage to four trains and 15,000 miles next year.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

39

The trains are fully equipped with modern technology, lasers, infrared cameras and powerful computers that capture images every 0.8mm.

These images are analysed using powerful computers to produce condition reports, including loose bolts, track geometry, rail, sleepers and ballast condition. The information is available to the maintenance teams which are able to identify exactly where the fault is and to use skilled resources, that would have previously been involved in the patrolling of the track, to carry out the necessary repairs.

New systems for new assets In preparation for the electrification of the Great Western main line (GWML), Network Rail has invested in the latest Supervisory, Control and Data System (SCADA) for the overhead line equipment. In addition, the new signalling control centres are now able to collate and coordinate real-time, intelligent traffic management systems throughout the network.

These systems, plus many others, not only provide better information about the condition of the assets but they are slowly being brought together to work alongside an initiative called ORBIS (Offering Rail Better Information Services). This can best be described as an “asset intelligence programme”, a transformation programme designed to improve the way Network Rail acquires its asset information, how this information is captured and stored and, most importantly, how it is then used. Work started in 2011 with an anticipated completion date of 2018.

Workforce involvement Recognising that front line staff are key to the success of this initiative, 200 workshops, which also included external stakeholders, were held throughout the country. More than 13,000 tablets and smart phones were issued to staff and Wi-Fi was installed in 50 depots. There was no constraint put on the use of this equipment and everyone involved was encouraged to get to know and use it and, most importantly, to think

of and suggest ideas for work related Apps that would help them and others to do their job more safely and more efficiently.

One of the apps introduced, My Work, digitised the work order process, removing paperwork and enabling frontline teams to view and complete work orders before uploading directly to Network Rail’s central system (issue 127, May 2015). More than 2.5 million work orders have been closed using the app. As staff confidence grows, there is the opportunity to develop and introduce more sophisticated and powerful applications leading to full asset data collection using this technology.

These initiatives can also be aligned to broader business improvement objectives and aspirations.

(Left) PLPR train interior showing workstations and (right) PLPR train at rest.

Decluttering Throughout the network, maintenance engineers are now able to declutter their work banks and replace old data with more accurate information about location and exact mileage complemented by trackside pictures displaying the fault identified. This information can be analysed using Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) techniques, another initiative that is underway, to enable appropriate safety and business priorities to be established.

The ORBIS programme, working to the principles of capturing, storing and exploiting accurate data, enables the work bank data to be coupled with other initiatives such

40

Rail Engineer • August 2015

recognising that it needs to understand how the system works to a far greater level of detail. It is one of the outcomes that ORBIS will deliver about asset information.

Meeting future demands

as the Linear Asset Decision Support tool (LADS), integrating 14 asset datasets allowing engineers to make decisions on whether to maintain, refurbish or renew assets, and the Geo-RINM (Rail Infrastructure Network Model) Viewer which allows users to see the UK’s rail network through a single integrated tool for the first time.

The Viewer will include high-quality images and LiDAR data captured during an aerial survey carried out last year of the UK’s 16,000 route kilometres of track and the surrounding rail environment.

Accurate and safe planning As a consequence, engineers and planners are now able to visually display the area associated with a fault identified within a safe environment, such as an office or a briefing vehicle equipped with 360º media systems. It means that work can be planned accurately without risk.

In addition, the work carried out can then be accurately recorded and downloaded onto the asset data base ensuring that asset history is kept up to date; an activity that has not always been well managed in the past.

Following on from this preliminary work, the next stage of ORBIS will look to join up all of the individual assets into a complete system model and achieve a far greater understanding of how these interact together. Some of this work is already underway, carrying out preliminary system mapping and understanding the criticality of different assets to aid the maintenance teams to maximise the reliability of these vital elements that have a direct benefit on performance.

This work becomes more critical as Network Rail continues to demand more capacity and capability out of the existing network while

With demand for rail services already stretching much of the UK’s infrastructure to its limit, and major expansions such as HS2 still some years off, the potential for ORBIS to assist in growing capacity is an important consideration. One option for achieving this is to move away from fixed signalling blocks on the rail network towards in-cab signalling, which will enable Network Rail to put a higher density of traffic on certain sections of the rail network.

This, in turn, will increase the maintenance workload as the degradation of the network will be accelerated. The other early aspects of ORBIS, such as asset condition, will therefore be crucial in delivering this.

As more sophisticated technology is imported into everyday working within Network Rail, one risk that must be taken into consideration is the possibility of a cyber-attack. Could the hacking of a signal system happen in the UK? It has happened in certain parts of Europe and it does raise the question as to whether there is such a thing as a closed system within an organisation the size of Network Rail. Clearly, this will be an emerging risk that the company will have to be aware of and manage.

ORBIS and the associated asset management systems that are being developed do form a concept that makes sense. The potential is enormous with the need to go trackside reduced, which lowers the risks associated with getting the job done. Knowledge of the assets will improve dramatically, helping to improve decision making with regard to renewal, traffic flows and general route strategy. There will be a significant knock-on benefit to major project work and the overall potential savings will contribute to compliance to CP5 financial targets.

In all, Network Rail is tackling one of the outstanding major challenges, helping to ensure that the UK rail industry will have a robust future using cutting edge technology.

42

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Easing the flow I

t’s not often that we have the pleasure of reporting on the new construction of a main line railway in England. But, in the heart of the country, a 4km stretch of brand new double track electrified railway is taking shape. Not heard of it?

Well, to many of us it does almost seem like a well-kept secret, but look left as you travel the West Coast main line (WCML) between Stafford and Crewe and the activities can be glimpsed.

The brief view of earthworks seen from a speeding train belies the true extent of what’s involved. Technically this is an upgrade, but with eleven new bridges, 10km of 100mph track, major river and road diversions and three new junctions - this is, by any standards, a substantial project. So what’s it all about?

The work forms part of a £250 million scheme known as the Stafford Area Improvements Programme (SAIP).

It is designed to remove the last major bottleneck on the WCML, at Norton Bridge. The full programme comprises three key stages: »» Upgrading of the slow lines between Crewe and Norton Bridge; »» Resignalling of Stafford station and the installation of a down goods loop; »» Separation of the slow lines at Norton Bridge onto an entirely new alignment and the creation of a grade separated junction.

Alliance All of these works are being delivered by an alliance that involves four partners participating in one collaborative contract. It follows the Australian ‘Pure Alliance’ model in that the member companies are working together as one organisation. Known as the Staffordshire Alliance, it is a partnership of Atkins, Laing O’Rourke, Network Rail and VolkerRail.

This is the first example of such an alliance operating within the UK rail industry and it has been driven by the need to embrace the findings and recommendations of the McNulty report. In other words, to reduce costs and improve the quality of what’s being delivered. Network

Rail says it wants to ‘develop mature collaborative relationships with key industry participants, creating a fundamentally different operating landscape.’

Different it is. The alliance draws upon the specialist skills and experience offered by the participating organisations, but with complete integration and equal sharing of the benefits and risks. Decisions are made on a ‘best for project’ basis. Whilst the collaboration must not remove accountability to deliver, it addresses concerns that quality and scope may be sacrificed in order to achieve cost savings when delivering multi-disciplinary programmes.

The result is a joint project team with widespread trust and the elimination of man marking. It looks beyond purely financial interests and creates incentives for the partners to work together in areas such as quality, safety and environmental impact. On SAIP, the alliance has also been important in developing a robust strategy for possessions on the WCML and to facilitate working with adjacent line open.

Slow lines fast The works to upgrade the slow lines over an 18mile distance between Crewe and Norton Bridge were completed in March 2014. Extensive OLE modifications were carried out by Network Rail’s overhead condition renewals team while track alignment works were undertaken by Network Rail/Amey Colas. In addition, four new banner repeater signals were installed.

The line speed has been raised from 75mph to 100mph, allowing the slow lines to be optimised for London Midland and CrossCountry services. This also gives improved access to the fast lines for maintenance work.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

43

STUART MARSH

New signalling SAIP Phase 2 involves the soon-to-be-completed re-signalling of Stafford station, with scheme boundaries at Shugborough on the London line and Penkridge on the route to Wolverhampton. Running concurrently with it is the upgrade of the slow lines between Stafford and Great Bridgeford to allow 100mph running.

Signalling in the Stafford area had seen little investment since the 1960s and was deemed life expired. There have also been capacity constraints through Stafford station itself. The signalling system is therefore being replaced entirely. All platforms at Stafford will become bi-directionally signalled and the line speed on the Up fast is to be increased.

Additionally, a new 775-metre Down goods loop was installed to the south of the station during the May 2015 bank holiday weekend.

The new signalling includes 78 new signal heads, 176 axle counters and five WESTLOCK interlockings and is to be controlled from a desk at the Rugby Route Operating Centre (ROC). In fact, this will be the first desk at the ROC to become operational. The scheme is to be commissioned over the August bank holiday weekend. Following this the two remaining electro-mechanical signal boxes, Stafford No.4 and Stafford No. 5, both dating from the 1950s, will be demolished.

Congested Norton Bridge Junction is the point at which the twin-track line to Stoke and Manchester Piccadilly diverges from the four-track route that serves Crewe, Liverpool and Scotland.

A mixture of InterCity, commuter and freight trains all have to share a complex flat junction. Services for Manchester that need to traverse the junction, especially those using the slow lines, can create congestion and pathing difficulties.

It is estimated that there are currently 40% more passenger journeys and 60% more freight than 20 years ago and passenger numbers are forecast to double

within the next 20 years. With capacity on the route at an all time high, intervention was needed to ease the bottleneck at Norton Bridge and to future proof it for decades to come.

The ambitious solution has been to separate the slow lines at a new junction near Little Bridgeford. They will now follow an entirely new alignment, which includes a flyover that passes over the WCML almost at right angles. Seen as a project of national significance, the Norton Bridge project has been the subject of a Development Consent Order application which was approved by the Secretary of State for Transport in March of this year. This follows a consultation process dating back to 2010. Work on site was commenced during the spring of 2014.

Phase 3 - Grand Junction The WCML route through Norton Bridge was an early railway, being constructed in the 1830s by the Grand Junction Railway.

It passes immediately to the east of the Norton Bridge hamlet, following a series of sweeping curves. There are several roads and rivers in the area and the constructors chose a course for their railway that took advantage of the land contours and minimised bridge construction.

Creation of a flyover has meant that the slow lines need to take a path through open countryside. Several routes were considered and the Staffordshire Alliance worked closely with the local community during the design process. It was clear from the outset that roadways and watercourses would have to

be diverted. Environmental issues included protected woodland and, of course, the ubiquitous Great Crested Newts.

The chosen alignment had to be something of a compromise, but a key factor in its favour is that the cut and fill is in balance, obviating the need to haul material over the local highways. A route further west would have created excess spoil, whereas a route further east would have required large quantities of imported material. The chosen route therefore has the best carbon footprint.

Split The concept is that the Up and Down slow lines will leave the existing WCML route at Little Bridgeford Junction following an almost straight route, climbing to the north at a constant gradient of 1 in 125. Making use of the height gain, the twin-track route swings to the north east after Searchlight Lane to pass above the WCML well to the north of the existing Norton Bridge Junction.

The new lines then fall to tie in with the Stoke line at a new junction near Yarnfield.

The existing four-track route through Norton Bridge will be reduced to three tracks by the removal of the Down slow. The new Down slow will split at Searchlight Lane with a new single track heading north to join end-on with the existing Down slow near Heamies Farm.

The existing junction at Norton Bridge will be reduced to a bi-directional single line chord. This line is retained only for flexibility and will not normally be used by timetabled services.

44

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Bridges The scale of the civil engineering works needed to achieve all this is truly enormous. There are ten new bridges and the enhancement (new deck) of one existing bridge, four river diversions, the diversion of three roadways (1.2km of new road) and two footpaths. Major diversions to utilities have included the re-routing of three high-pressure gas pipelines and a pipeline carrying aviation fuel.

Upon leaving the WCML route at Little Bridgeford, underbridge No.1 carries the slow lines over the River Sow. This is followed closely by underbridge No.2 which takes the railway over a tributary called Meece Brook.

The route then enters a cutting that is 85 metres wide and up to 15 metres deep, graded with a 2 in 1 batter. Approximately 650,000m³ of material, largely composed of Mercia mudstone, has been excavated from the cutting and has been transported via internal haul roads to create embankments and bunds elsewhere within the scheme.

Overbridge No.3 crosses the embankment at its mid-point and carries the diverted Searchlight Lane. The next significant structure is the intersection

bridge No.5 that straddles the WCML. Just to the north, the diverted B5026 crosses the WCML on overbridge No.5A. The new line is then on a five metre high embankment as it crosses the flood plain of Meece Brook. Stabilisation of the ground here has been achieved by rock piling. Over 2000 stone columns have been driven-in in this area.

The embankment is intersected by the diverted Meece Brook at underbridge No.6.

Its abutments accommodate a second deck (bridge 6A) that carries the continuing diversion of the B5026. At this point the roadway is higher than the railway and it passes over bridge 6A on a three metre high embankment.

Overbridge No.7 takes the new railway under a minor road, closely followed by underbridge No.8 as Yarnfield Junction is approached. The latter involves the widening of an existing bridge by replacement of the deck. Overbridge No.9 carries a footpath, replacing Mid Norton footpath crossing.

On the single track formation north of Searchlight Lane Junction, overbridge No.10 carries the B5026 and underbridge No.11 as at a further encounter with the meandering Meece Brook.

TO/FROM CREWE

TO/FROM STOKE/ MANCHESTER

O/B5A U/B6/6A U/B11

F/B9

U/B8

O/B7 DNB UNB

DSC

I/B5

O/B10A

NBEC

NEW/RENEWED TRACK EXISTING TRACK

US DF UF

REMOVED TRACK

O/B3

BRIDGE (OVER WATER)

U/B2 U/B1

UF

UP FAST

DF

DOWN FAST

US

UP SLOW

DSC

DOWN SLOW CHORD

NBEC

TO/FROM STAFFORD/ LONDON

NORTON BRIDGE EAST CHORD

Pre-cast Most of the bridge components have been manufactured at the Laing O’Rourke pre-cast plant in Worksop and at a pre-cast yard within the main project compound near Chebsey. These structural components were then transported to site by road, saving on-site construction time. Entire abutment shells, for instance, were craned into position onto pre-installed pile mats.

Bridge 6 has two such stacked abutment shells to support the rail deck and three for the road deck. The pre-cast method has also reduced the need for skilled labour at the worksites and a reduced need for personnel to work at height.

The completion of overbridge No.5A in May 2015 was a milestone event in the project. The internal haul road was extended over it, allowing the transportation of excavated material to form the embankments east of the WCML. Articulated dump trucks have carried 4,000m³ of material per day across this bridge - a load every 45 seconds across the bridge, necessitating traffic light control.

Of the 650,000m³ excavated from the cutting, approximately 230,000m³ has been used to build embankments and the remainder has been used for landscaping bunds. The bunds have a maximum slope of 1 in 8 and will be returned to agricultural use upon completion of the project. At the time of writing, the completion of all eleven bridges was expected by the end of August and the earthworks are planned to be finished

by November 2015.

Railhead Track laying was commenced from the new junction at Little Bridgeford in May 2015 and has followed the advancement of the cutting. This temporary railhead allowed delivery of materials for drainage, capping and track to be delivered from Bescot yard in 1200 tonne train loads, with up to five trains per week using the siding. It is estimated that this has saved 200 lorry journeys into and out of the site every week.

Track construction trains are scheduled to visit the site again on 26 September, 7 November and 12 December 2015. The signalling works are due to be commissioned at the end of March 2016.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

45

Community and environment An intensive programme of public engagement has taken place, including presentations, leaflet drops and consultation events. The alliance has also engaged with local schools and a legacy steering group has been formed to look at ways in which the project can make a lasting contribution to the surrounding community.

Unavoidably, the cutting north of Little Bridgeford has needed to pass through a small part of Yeld’s Rough. This is an area that includes protected woodland and ponds providing a habitat for species including badgers, otters, barn owls, bats and great crested newts (GCN).

Flora and fauna was translocated from the affected area. As part of this process a total of 14km of GCN fencing was constructed.

Archaeological studies have taken place as the excavation work has progressed. Significant finds from the early medieval period have been uncovered, including the wooden lid of a butter churn. It dates from 715-890 AD when the area was at the heart of the Mercian kingdom.

Evidence of prehistoric activity had been uncovered in the same area.

Benefits The requirements of SAIP are to create the capability to deliver more services, facilitating a recast of the timetable by the winter of 2017.

Two additional fast trains per hour (off-peak, each direction) between London Euston and the North West - these paths are to be created by moving the twice-hourly Birmingham/Liverpool services to the slow lines. »» One extra fast train per hour (each direction) between Manchester and Birmingham pathed for a Class 350. »» One extra freight train path per hour (each direction) through Stafford.

The ‘Pure Alliance’ contractual arrangement has worked extremely well in the delivery of this complex multi-disciplinary programme.

It’s estimated that it has so far created cost savings within SAIP of 10%, with further savings forecast.

The alliance is also helping to deliver the programme one year early, by December 2016. Clearly, the Pure Alliance structure has generated a highly motivated and engaged team that has encouraged innovation, safety and the use of best practices throughout. This surely represents a model that can be used again, and it’s not hard to imagine where.

More than one bottleneck may well have been eased by this radical new approach.

To Railcare people, technology matters Technology – some dictionary definitions: 1. The branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

2. The application of this knowledge for practical ends.

That’s why Railcare has a dedicated team of R&D people.

Their passion is developing new ways of doing things, test these ideas to destruction, and deliver better maintenance solutions.

Best known for our unique RailVac, the world’s most powerful vacuum excavator, we’ve applied the same genius for invention to snow and vegetation removal and drain repair - all in pursuit of making railway infrastructure better, last longer and more reliable.

If you’re looking for a team that values technology as much as you do, call the Railcare people.

Railcare Sweden Ltd

01332 647 388 - www.railcare.co.uk - info@railcare.co.uk

46

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Biggest ever

DAVID SHIRRES

O

challenge

ver the last weekend in June, around 200 people, including many eminent railway engineers, gathered at the Stapleford Miniature Railway near Melton Mowbray for the annual Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) Railway Challenge. This event, organised by the Institution’s Railway Division, was first held in 2012 and requires young engineers to design and build a 10¼” gauge locomotive that is subject to various performance trials.

The competition is open to apprentices, students and those within two years of graduation. With seven teams, this year’s competition was a much larger event than the previous three events which each had four entries. There were four University teams: Birmingham, Huddersfield, Sheffield and Southampton, and three from industry: Interfleet, TE Connectivity and Transport for London (TfL).

The Warwick Manufacturing Group had started to build a locomotive but ran out of time.

The Stapleford Miniature Railway is operated by the Friends of the Stapleford Miniature Railway (FSMR), and this year’s event presented them with the real-world problem of rail capacity management. Outside the station area, the railway has two miles of single-line track with a balloon loop. On the day of the trials, four trains had to be managed at any one time: two trial locomotives, a rescue locomotive and a steam hauled train for spectators. To manage this, the FSMR produced a manual specifying how the 89 planned train movements would be managed.

Making it happen Arranging this event is a challenge in itself. For the Institution’s project manager, Rachel Pearson, planning and preparing for the event was a significant task. It included a site visit to Stapleford to confirm arrangements with the FSMR and dealing with an increased number of visitors. A great deal of thought went into the development of the technical specification and challenge

rules which are changed each year to encourage innovations and present fresh challenges to previous entrants.

During the weekend, chief judge Bill Reeve presided over six other judges and six scrutineers. The FSMR also fielded a full team to operate the railway. This included the provision of a controller who only accepted movement requests from the Institution’s Railway Challenge controller.

The plan for the weekend was that scrutineering and testing would take place on the Friday and Saturday.

Saturday was also the day for the team’s business case presentations and a new maintainability challenge during which teams were timed as they remove and replace a powered wheelset. For locomotives that had passed scrutineering, Sunday was the day of the trials when their performance against the track-based challenges was assessed.

Setting the standard The Railway Challenge’s technical specification is written to give the teams the greatest possible flexibility to meet the specified performance requirements. It also obliges them to provide drawings, calculations and a system safety analysis to validate their design. Specific requirements include refuelling in 90 seconds, 95% of materials being recyclable, remote operation from the trailing load, provision of an energy meter and the preparation of detailed drawings and maintenance manuals.

Rail Engineer • August 2015 Before they can compete in the trials, each locomotive must collect a set of six stickers issued by scrutineers who assess the locomotives and associated documentation for compliance with the specification. These stickers are: Demo, Safety, Fuel, Brakes, Calculations and Indication.

The rules for the challenge award points in eight categories. Six of these are track based: Energy Storage (300 points), Energy Efficiency (300), Traction (150), Ride Comfort (150), Noise (150) and Maintainability (150). There are also two presentation challenges - for a business case presentation (150) and design report (150).

The rules state that the objective is to challenge teams to build a locomotive and to compete against other teams in a series of challenges.

However, the real objective is to develop young engineers and attract them to the rail industry. Wesley Gilbert, TE Connectivity’s global rail marketing manager, has no doubt that the Railway Challenge meets this objective. He feels it provided his graduates with “a unique opportunity to learn from real project management experience in a multidisciplinary environment”.

It was Professor Simon Iwnicki, director of the Institute of Railway Research at the University of Huddersfield, supported by fellow members of the IMechE’s Railway Division, who pioneered the idea of the challenge. He also has no doubt that the challenge “develops broader skills including time management on a big project, working together as a team, sharing out tasks and overcoming technical challenges in tight time constraints”.

The teams and their locos New entrants to the challenge this year were the Universities of Sheffield and Southampton and the Swindon-based TE Connectivity. The Sheffield team consisted of first and second year mechanical engineering students led by David Roebuck. Their locomotive was powered by a petrol power pack. It had a low, belowaxle bogie frame and did not have an energy recovery system which is being developed for the 2016 challenge.

The Southampton team, led by Mitch Clark, was made up of 12 final-year mechanical engineering students. According to Mitch, their biggest challenge was that they “were all mechanical engineers”. Despite this, they had developed a hybrid locomotive which used a modestlypowered 2.8kW petrol generator, super-capacitor and batteries to deliver a peak 14kW output with a ‘get you home’ facility. The remote Wi-Fi control system could control the locomotive from up to 100 metres.

TE Connectivity had a team of six graduate engineers led by Matthew James. Their locomotive was a fourwheeled locomotive with rubber bush suspension. Its control system used a Raspberry Pi computer whilst an Arduino platform was used to monitor sensors for condition monitoring.

Interfleet was the winner of the first challenge in 2012 and has participated in every challenge since.

Its team was made up of seven mechanical and electrical engineers who joined the company in August, led by Peter Bryant. This locomotive was also a hybrid with 3.6kW peak power. Due to its aluminium construction, it weighed only 380 kg.

The University of Birmingham’s four-wheeled locomotive was powered by a 4.5kW hydrogen fuel cell. Another novel feature of this locomotive was its silicon carbide inverter. Ivan Krastev led their team of ten students.

The University of Huddersfield locomotive won the challenge in 2013. This year the team was made

47

Testing the University of Huddersfield locomotive.

48

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Interfleet locomotive undergoing the Energy Recovery Challenge.

Martin Halligan of the winning London Underground team felt that: “our biggest credit should go to our mechanical engineering team who reduced weight with their aluminium body car design which gave us a much better regenerative braking performance.”

up of eight final year students, led

by Eduardo Samuel Matthew, who had each undertaken projects to improve the locomotive. This included the provision of a secondary air suspension and a more reliable design of their unique axle-mounted coil spring energy recovery system.

Last year’s winner TfL fielded a team of nine graduates and nine apprentices led by project manager Bejal Mandalia. Their locomotive had an innovative hydro-pneumatic energy recovery system. Since last year, the locomotive had been rebuilt to a new lightweight design to reduce its weight from 1000kg to 532kg.

Fried Raspberry Pi On Friday and Saturday, the locomotives were subject to the various scruitineering tests. The teams also tested their locomotives on the Stapleford railway.

Unfortunately, despite much hard work, three teams were unable to pass scrutineering or operate reliably and so did not participate in Sunday’s performance trials.

Under load, the spikes from the output of the generator of TE Connectivity’s locomotive burnt out its Raspberry Pi computer. The team had to go to Coventry to purchase a replacement. Once this was repaired, the traction motor drive was affected by play in the axle box suspension bush.

Birmingham’s locomotive also suffered various electrical problems, in part from under-specified components.

After one channel of the chopper control burnt out, the locomotive was run on a single traction motor that failed as it returned from a test run on Saturday afternoon. After working late into the night, the motor was replaced and scrutineering completed. Unfortunately, the locomotive suffered a further electrical problem on Sunday morning.

At first, the testing of Sheffield’s locomotive seemed to go well, but on return, it derailed on the sharp curves in the station area. It became clear that this was not an isolated problem and the locomotive was deemed unfit for the trials. The Sheffield team were determined to participate and so worked through the night to modify the

suspension. Although the locomotive passed scrutineering at 08:15, it later became clear that it was still prone to derailment.

Saturday’s challenges For the business case challenge, teams have to consider themselves as part of a design consultancy that wishes to sell its prototype 10¼” gauge locomotive to a ‘large corporation’. The aim is to evaluate the team’s ability to show how its design best meets the customer’s demands and is cost effective. This can be a tough challenge as it requires teams to ask themselves why anyone should want to buy their locomotives when they have spent months focused solely on engineering issues.

New this year was the maintainability challenge, which tests the ease with which a major component can be removed and replaced. Each locomotive had to move under its own power to a point where a powered wheelset was completely removed and re-fitted. The winner would be the team with the shortest time, subject to any penalties for safety infringements.

Sunday’s winner Of the four teams that completed Sunday’s performance challenges, the winner was TfL, the first team to win in two successive years.

Interfleet, University of Southampton and University of Huddersfield took the second, third and fourth prizes.

Although they did not compete in the trials, TE Connectivity, Sheffield and Birmingham took fifth, sixth and seventh prizes from points awarded for their business case presentation, design report and the maintainability challenge.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Before announcing the results, chief judge Bill Reeve emphasised that he was impressed by the teams’ “consistent application of commitment, ingenuity and sheer hard work”. He expressed a special welcome for the three new teams who, he felt, were to be congratulated “just for showing up” as producing a new locomotive in such a short time was a real achievement.

He noted that the challenge involved trying new technology and that new ideas do not always work first time. This was not just a problem for competitors.

For the judges, it had proved impossible to assess this year’s new energy efficiency challenge fairly.

Bill promised that next year there would be clearer guidance on this challenge, which is a hugely important part of railway engineering.

Fun and learning The Institution’s president, Professor Richard Folkson, presented the winner’s trophy. As a former chief judge for the Formula Student competition, he was impressed how the Railway Division had developed its own industry equivalent. He acknowledged it must have been disappointing for some teams to have worked hard on their locomotives and not get the opportunity to run in the trials but encouraged them not to feel downhearted. He was sure that they had learnt a lot and felt everyone had a lot of fun over the weekend.

The participants at next year’s challenge will be almost all new, as the challenge rules do not allow any team to have more than two team members from a previous railway challenge team. Hence, no doubt, many lessons will need to be re-learnt next year. Having reported on the challenge since 2012, Rail Engineer would like to think that future challenge teams would find our articles about it to be useful and would like to offer the following tips for success: »» Test your locomotives before the challenge on one of the UK’s fifty 10¼”-gauge railways. Under power, they get hot, vibrate and generate electrical spikes.

The only way to be sure it will stay on track is by running it over points and tight curves. »» Understand the limitations of standard components such as chains. It is not wise to use electronics rated at a maximum 48 volts in a 4 x 12 volt battery system that may reach 53 volts. »» Effective project management is essential.

Particular aspects of the locomotive may be the result of a number of successful student projects that need to be co-ordinated to ensure on-time completion. Know when to freeze the design and ensure that materials are effectively procured. »» Make a good business case presentation that includes engineering, reliability, cost and other benefits that would make someone want to buy the locomotive. Having spent so much time solving the locomotive’s engineering problems it can be difficult to see things from a customer perspective.

You ain’t seen nothing yet At a time when the rail industry is suffering from a critical shortage of engineers, the IMechE’s Railway Division is doing its bit to attract and develop young talent. The success of the Railway Challenge was evident from the enthusiasm of everyone concerned and the smooth running of the event, in no small part due to FMSR which is also short of engineers. Please contact them if you would like to volunteer to work on the Stapleford Miniature Railway.

With around forty universities offering rail engineering, and numerous rail suppliers, there is significant potential for more entrants. Current Railway Division chair Chris Kinchin-Smith advised, “You ain’t seen nothing yet”. He promised that the Division would grow the competition and thanked teams, not only for their huge achievements over the weekend, but also for helping the competition grow through word of their successes.

It seems certain that the Railway Challenge will continue to produce more innovations on 10¼” gauge locomotives. It remains to be seen whether innovations first trialled at Stapleford might eventually find their way onto a standard gauge railway.

49

The Fin al S cor e The points awarded to the top four teams, who completed the on-track challenges, were as follows: »» »» »» »»

1st London Underground - 935 2nd Interfleet - 826 3rd Southampton Uni - 772 4th Huddersfield Uni – 728

The other three teams were, for one reason or another, unable to complete the running tests. However, they were graded on the elements of the competition which they did complete: »» 5th - TE Connectivity »» 6th - Sheffield University »» 7th - University of Birmingham Chief judge Bill Reeve commented on the results: “Simply presenting a locomotive at the Challenge is quite an achievement. Many teams don't get that far. The teams that weren't able to complete the track challenges would have benefited from more opportunity to test their locos before the event, and I'm confident they will be back next year.”

50

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Applying logic

to level crossings

PAUL DARLINGTON

O

bstacle Detection (OD) crossings are now fully approved and in use throughout the country. In issue 125 (March 2015), Rail Engineer reported on one of the first installations at Four Lane Ends on the Wigan to Southport route. That article discussed that the next step would be to control such crossings with the use of an electronic solid state interlocking, rather than a relay-based one.

OD crossings use radar to confirm a crossing is clear from road vehicles and pedestrians before allowing the protecting signals to come off and allow trains to proceed but, as in all signalling applications, a failsafe interlocking is key to safe operation.

Programmable logic controller (PLC)-based control systems have been used in other industries for many years. One example is the Pilz PSS 4000, which has been used widely in machine safe automation, process safety, mines, bridges, water treatment

systems and in European rail. It is now being developed and approved for use within Great Britain as reported in issue 118 (August 2014) and its deployment is awaited with interest.

It is, however, only one of several safety critical PLCs that are being evaluated for use on GB rail. Over the next few years, several hundred crossings will need replacing and it’s important that there is a selection of safe products to choose from and GB rail does not become dependent on one vendor.

ROSEHILL ROAD CROSSINGS

T H E O N LY R U B B E R C R O S S I N G SYST E M MADE IN THE UK

ESSENTIALS CHECKLIST

■

Value for money More cost effective than other modular systems.

■

Simple to install Available for all gauge, rail and sleeper configurations.

■

Ideal for inspections Individual panels can be removed in under a minute, or replaced without dismantling the whole crossing.

■

High performance Safe and robust, designed in conjunction with Network Rail for light or heavy traffic.

■

Solid rubber panels Outperforms other rubber systems in long-term use.

■

Sustainable products Whole life low environmental impact.

■

No special tools required Tool kits and lifting pins can be supplied.

For more information, or to enquire about training, please call the Rosehill sales team on +44 ( 0 )1422 317 482, or email info@rosehillrail.com

rosehillrail.com

52

Rail Engineer • August 2015

VHLC cabinet with the cover of the Logic Controller open.

The East Sussex Coast Re-signalling project was one of the first in the country to use another PLC-based interlocking for the level crossings on the scheme. This was the Vital Harmon Logic Controller (VHLC) supplied

by GE Transportation, and the scheme was successfully commissioned by Atkins and Network Rail in 54 hours over the weekend of the 13/16 February 2015. Unlike the Pilz example, the VHLC is a proprietary rail PLC.

Interlocking developments An (OD) crossing is protected by road traffic light signals and lifting barriers on each side of the railway.

An audible warning to pedestrians is also provided. The barriers are normally kept in the raised position and, when lowered, extend across the whole width of the carriageway on each approach.

The crossing normally operates automatically and the closure sequence is initiated by approaching trains clearing track circuits. Confirmation that the crossing is clear, and that railway signals may be cleared for the passage of trains, is provided automatically following a thorough scan for any significant obstruction by obstacle detection equipment (the Radar). An interlocking is required to correctly and safely control the protecting railways signals, road traffic light signals and lifting barriers.

The first railway interlockings were mechanical.

A locking bed and steel bars form a grid with levers providing the input and signals, points, signals and

barriers providing the output. If the function controlled by a given lever conflicts with that controlled by another lever, mechanical interference is set up in the cross locking between the two bars, in turn preventing a conflicting lever movement from being made.

Relay interlockings were the next evolution and operated solely by electrical circuitry, with the large mechanical levers of previous systems being replaced by buttons or switches on a panel or via a video interface.

Complex electrical circuitry is made up of relays and contacts in an arrangement of relay logic that confirms the state or position of each signal output. As devices are operated, their change of position opens circuits that lock out other devices that would conflict with the new position. Similarly, other circuits are closed when the devices they control become safe to operate.

Still in use today, over one hundred years after their introduction, these crossings are inherently fail safe as, if the relay coil fails in a level crossing interlocking, the circuitry is designed so that signals stay red and level crossing barriers come down.

Modern electronic interlockings have been introduced over the last 30 years. They use solid-state electronics with no moving parts and the wired networks of relays are replaced by software logic running on specialpurpose microprocessor control hardware. The logic is implemented by software rather than hard-wired circuitry and provides the ability to make modifications when needed by reprogramming rather than rewiring.

The vital logic is stored as firmware or in read-only memory (ROM) that cannot be easily altered to resist unsafe modification and meet safety testing requirements.

Solid State Interlocking (SSI) is the brand name of the first-generation microprocessor-based interlocking developed in the 1980s by British Rail, GEC-General Signal and Westinghouse Signals Ltd. Second generation processor-based interlockings are known by the term computer-based interlockings (CBI) - Westlock and Westrace (trademarks of Siemens) and Smartlock (trademark of Signalling Solutions Ltd) are examples of CBI interlockings.

Programmable logic controllers (PLC) In the rest of industry, software-based electronic control systems are also used for the automation of typically industrial electromechanical processes, such as the control of machinery on factory assembly lines, amusement rides, or lift systems. These have the generic title of programmable logic controllers (PLC) and the same PLC can be used for many different applications using an appropriate software programme to control the system.

PLCs are now starting to be used for railway signalling control, including level crossings, and they are also being used on trains. Not all PLCs are designed to be fail safe, and a key requirement for an interlocking PLC is to use one with a high Safety Integrity Level (SIL). In very simple terms, a control instruction is undertaken in software which is executed by at least two diverse internal central processing units (CPUs) which cross-check each other before an instruction is executed.

WMG centre High Value Manufacturing Catapult Addressing the Global Challenge of Low Carbon Mobility

WMG at the University of Warwick works collaboratively with business to incorporate cuttingedge research into commercially successful products and services.

Research at the WMG centre of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult is focused on the global challenge of Low Carbon Mobility within the two specific themes of Lightweight Technologies and Energy Storage and Management.

Lightweight Technologies Centre of Excellence WMG is developing the next generation of lightweight solutions. Research includes detailed material modelling and validation, design methods, manufacture (forming, joining and assembly) and product performance. We work with structural and functional materials including metals, ceramics, polymers, nanocomposites and multi-functional materials.

Energy Innovation Centre (EIC) The Centre includes an open access, ÂŁ13m Battery Materials Pilot Line, which provides a one-stop-shop for the development of new battery chemistries from concept to fully proven traction batteries. There is also a battery characterisation laboratory plus abuse testing chambers, and an electric/ hybrid drives testing facility.

T +44 (0)24 7615 1667 w www.wmghvmcatapult.org.uk E wmghvmcatapult@warwick.ac.uk

54

Rail Engineer • August 2015 The hard-wired relay logic is converted into PLC code using various programming languages. This is not as simple as it sounds as old relay circuits have evolved to compensate for relay behavioural characteristics and all the standards have evolved around relays. A system requirement specification has to be created using a formal method (in accordance with the standard for softwarebased signalling EN 50128) before coding the PLC and proving it is safe in accordance with safety standards for railway signalling and telecoms systems. Once this is done, the benefits are many as: »» the hardware in PLCs is tried and tested, typically for decades in many applications; »» firmware/software for safety PLCs meets IEC 61508-3 (Functional safety of electrical/electronic/ programmable electronic safety-related systems); »» programming for subsequent systems is simple and flexible through the re-use of pre-validated function blocks; »» PLCs can be mounted in a lineside cubicle instead of an equipment room, saving space; »» some vendors provide PLCs which are compliant with standards, such as EN 50121, for environmental requirements with regards to temperature and electromagnetic compatibility; »» there is no need for special air conditioning / heating / filtering; »» system architectures for control systems are available up to SIL level 4; »» there is a wide availability of PLC suppliers and programmers; »» PLCs are expandable and scalable and operate via proven, open-architecture IP and Ethernet-based communications; »» there is no expensive periodic testing and servicing of relays.

Pilz PSS4000 showing size.

Safety standards International standard IEC 61508 “Functional safety of electrical / electronic / programmable electronic safety-related systems (E/E/PES)” is an umbrella standard intended to be a basic functional safety standard applicable to all kinds of industry. It covers the complete safety life cycle and has its origins in the process control industry sector.

The European EN5012x family of railway standards, including EN50126, EN50128 and EN50129, have been developed by CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation) and apply to both heavy rail systems and light rail and urban mass transportation including people movers. EN 50126 covers the specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS) and is the core standard.

EN 50128, which details communications, signalling and processing systems, addresses requirements capture, software design, implementation and testing while EN 50129 describes in detail what action and documentation has to be provided for the purpose of preparing a safety case.

East Sussex re-signalling Covering an area from Eastbourne in the south to Lewes Station in the west and Bexhill Station in the east, the East Sussex Coast re-signalling project replaced 26 miles of life-expired mechanical infrastructure with a modern, state of the art signalling system. The scheme saw line speeds increased to 90mph, 10 level crossings upgraded and six existing signal boxes abolished, with control of the new signalling system being transferred to the new Three Bridges Route Operating Centre (ROC).

VHLC interlocking technology was selected for the scheme’s level crossings instead of conventional relaybased interlocking as it takes up less space, does not need an equipment room for hundreds of relays (so no heating and lighting is needed), requires fewer cables and, as there are no moving parts, delivers higher reliability. It also costs less to upgrade and maintain the level crossings.

The public often believes that an operator-controlled level crossing is safer than one which uses an obstacle detector to confirm a crossing is clear. However, an obstacle detector does not get fatigued or distracted and is therefore just as safe, if not safer.

The VHLC replaces most vital and non-vital relays at an interlocking. Its software package, Logic Station, allows signal design engineers to program vital signal logic for the VHLC using relay logic diagrams. The basic VHLC system consists of the chassis, power supply, vital logic processor, auxiliary communication processor, and a site-specific module. Various configurations for different code system emulations are provided. Being just 330.2 mm high, 483.0 mm wide, 355.6 mm deep and weighing just 15.0kg, the VHLC is located in a single small lineside cubicle rather than needing a complete equipment building.

While there may be some concern in locating electronic equipment in lineside cabinets for maintainability and environmental reasons, it must be remembered that such equipment monitors and reports any faults to a central location together with allowing remote diagnostics and interventions. The equipment is very reliable, so regular access for maintenance and adjustment is not required.

Telecommunications equipment has been located in lineside cubicles for many years and, while similar concerns were raised when they were introduced, these have been unfounded. On the East Sussex Coast Resignalling project, it has been reported that the only active element that is not remotely monitored and maintained is the light inside the lineside cubicle housing!

Rail Engineer • August 2015 Not all barrier crossings are suitable for use with OD equipment to confirm the crossing is clear. If the road profile is such that the radar cannot get a clear scan of the crossing and may possibly miss an obstruction, conventional manual observation via the use of CCTV may still be required. This was the situation at Hampden Park and Havensmouth crossings on the East Sussex Coast scheme, although the VHLC interlocking was still used.

The VHLC had previously been used for Automatic Half Barrier crossings, but Atkins had to gain type approval for use with an OD crossing. The programme of validation and verification testing included the establishment of an off-rail OD crossing complete with barrier machines.

This allowed a lengthy and extensive testing programme in complete safety, and to make sure the system was reliable before it ever went near service.

This approach to testing a new system extensively before it is installed on the operational railway is to be applauded, and it is an area where railways have done poorly in the past. It is appreciated that it is not always easy to create a working railway and the introduction of plug and play cabling has helped. In the car industry a new vehicle would not be launched and sold without years of behind the scenes testing, and it is this rigour of testing that the rail industry must aspire to if it is retain credibility.

It is even more important now that systems are very complex.

The East Sussex Coast re-signalling project commissioning was undertaken in five 12-hour shifts. At one point, there were over 300 engineers and staff on site at the same time - dismantling the critical parts of the old signalling system and bringing the new one into

use. During that time, VHLC was applied to the 10 level crossings across the East Sussex project, the highest number of level crossings that Atkins has brought into service within one commissioning. Some of this efficiency was due to using the VHLC product and the amount of off-site testing that was possible.

Since the commissioning on 16 February, the only failures have been with the conventional relays which are still required to interface with the obstacle detector equipment. There have been no failures of the VHLC electronic equipment.

Atkins is now using the lessons learned during the development and deployment of the VHLC PLC for the introduction of its larger ElectroLogIXS electronic CBI interlocking. In addition, the Signalling Innovations Group at Network Rail is evaluating a number of commercial off-the-shelf PLC products from outside the rail sectorparticularly for MCB-OD crossings but for other types as well.

These developments should drive down the cost of providing level crossings in the future.

Need Temporary Access?

The UK’s Only Flat Pack Bridge Access?

Provider Need Temporary The UK’s Only Flat Pack Bridge Provider Groundforce Bridge is the UK’S only flat pack bridge provider, currently providing the rail industry with a range of easily installed heavy duty temporary bridges.

Contact us today for a FREE site survey & quote.

0800 169 5269

www.groundforcebridge.co.uk

0800 169 5269

www.groundforcebridge.co.uk

55

Polegate MCB OD crossing with PLC.

WATCH A BRIDGE INSTALLATION WATCH youtube.com/vpgroundforce A BRIDGE INSTALLATION youtube.com/vpgroundforce

56

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Red light cameras Catching offenders

A Vysionics Vector LX installation.

who misuse level crossings

I

t is a well-known fact that there are a number of motorists that continue to drive across level crossings after the ‘wig wag’ stop lights have been activated. These drivers are placing themselves, their passengers and the staff and passengers on the trains at risk of serious injury or even death.

Coupled with this is the inconvenience to passengers and the expense of getting the rail line back into operation after an incident.

As part of Network Rail’s National Level Crossing Programme, the Red Light Safety equipment (RLSe) project looks to tackle this pressing safety issue using an innovative system at some of the UK’s highest risk level crossings. 28 safety cameras have already been installed at level crossings across the nation to help deter motorists from taking unnecessary risks such as jumping red lights or weaving around barriers to save time.

The cameras - in distinctive hivisibility enclosures - will be used more extensively if they prove successful in making crossings even safer. They automatically capture evidence data, digital images and video of motorists breaching the stop lines after the red warning lights have been switched on using a combination of scanning radar, advanced computer video analytics and ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) for the detection of offences. This unattended and fully

automatic process carries on 24 hours a day without the need for a police officer or any human intervention at the crossing.

The evidence information they provide will be used to directly prosecute drivers who fail to comply with the stop signals using a brand new collaborative procedure between the British Transport Police, Network Rail and offence processing partners at the Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership.

Jumping red lights or weaving around barriers is already a breach of the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act, but can usually only be enforced if a police officer is on site or witnesses the event. The new Home Office type-approved cameras (HOTA) could prove to be a game changer as they can be deployed safe in the knowledge that the evidence they produce can be used directly for prosecution purposes without additional and time consuming, police intervention or investigation in most cases.

First deployment To deliver the new Red Light Safety equipment, Carillion Rail, in conjunction with Carillion Roads Technology, was awarded the contract to proceed with the first 6 trial sites by the Network Rail Infrastructure Projects East Midlands team.

Supported by camera manufacturers Futronics, SEA and Vysionics, as well as design partners TPS, 4way and Screwfast, Carillion was subsequently awarded a further contract for 22 additional roll out sites across the UK. The RLSe system consists of two monitoring masts situated either side of the crossing. On each mast is a multipurpose camera head which monitors the status of the warning lights, detects movement beyond a threshold, records vehicle registrations and an image of the driver’s face. If an offence is detected, the incident package is sent to a back office where the incident is verified and a penalty notice issued, if necessary, with behavioural data saved for evidence.

Offenders will generally be offered either a level crossing red light training course, points on their driving license and a fine, or court. Like with speeding offences, offenders can only attend the training once in a three year period.

Delivery of World Class Infrastructure united with Global Signalling Expertise Making level crossings safer for local communities through proven technological advancements that offer improved reliability and enhanced safety, as standard.

The UK’s only complete railway engineering solution

www.infrasig.net

To find out more.

58

Rail Engineer • August 2015

The cameras are a unique combination of ANPR, video and scanning radar. The system can identify when offences occur and gathers a wealth of ‘situational awareness’ data to identify behaviours at different times of day. This information is delivered without the need for road loops or intrusive connections into the traffic signals, providing a system that is powerful, effective and simple to maintain.

The first of the new cameras to obtain Home Office type approval was the Vysionics VECTOR LX which received its certification in February 2015. SEA has completed practical trials of its camera and is awaiting Home Office review of its documentation before obtaining approval. The Futronics system is nearing completion of testing and then must submit its results documentation.

All three systems, according to a Network Rail spokesman, should be approved by Autumn 2015.

Foxton level crossing, Cambridgshire, on the King's Cross to Cambridge main line.

In general, a piled installation solution with a post is used. However, due to stringent deflection criteria at the camera head, Carillion had to come up with an innovative design based on first principles.

Using a universal top hat post fixed onto the pile at ground level, the holding down studs allow for easy installation and alignment of the columns. The studs also act as a sheer point during a collision to reduce the kinetic energy of impact. Only one pile is required for each system component, eliminating the requirement for excavations, removal of excavated material, associated concrete limitations and attendances.

This solution enables works to be undertaken in shorter access periods reducing impact to road and rail users as part of the process.

At a particularly high priority site in West London (White Hart Lane), it was clear that there would not be sufficient space on a busy high street to install the new equipment. Specialist camera supplier SEA developed a unique application using technology similar to that used on bus lanes, enabling the camera equipment to be mounted on existing lighting columns.

Coupled with the agreed utilisation of the power supply inside the lighting column, this innovative approach has provided a solution to a particularly problematic site.

For installations in remote locations, and as the system requires power supply at both sides of the crossing, the possibilities of alternative sources such as batteries, solar, wind and fuel cells was examined. However the detection systems use too much energy for a renewable source to be feasible without significant investment and a disproportional investment in equipment, not to mention the whole life cost over 10 years’ service life.

Level crossings, where pedestrians, road vehicles and trains all occupy the same space, albeit at different times, will always bring higher risks than a totally closed-in, fenced railway. However, being able to actually prosecute offenders, through the use of this equipment and by passing information along to the BTP, Network Rail intends to make them as safe as possible.

Peter Kay, Network Rail project manager said: “With the railway network and road traffic only getting busier, we need to do all we can to deter people from taking a risk which could result in a fatal collision.

“We know that waiting at a level crossing can be frustrating but the cameras are there as a deterrent to remind motorists of the real dangers posed by jumping the lights. We won’t see any of the fines collected and would rather not catch anyone intentionally abusing a level crossing. We want to let as many people as possible know about the cameras so they can use our crossings correctly to keep them and us safe.”

The special SEA installation at White Hart Lane.

Futronics' design of red light camera.

SEA standard outstation.

Complex installation

DELIVERING A TRACK RECORD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE Bringing 20 Years Civil Engineering Experience to the Rail Network.

We have all the in-house expertise available to provide a first class service, be it design and build of new structures, asset refurbishment, survey works, drainage or general civil engineering works.

Network Rail Principal Contractor (Full)

Sceptre House, Sceptre Way, Bamber Bridge , Preston PR5 6AW T: 01772 694627 E: rail@ericwright.co.uk

60

Rail Engineer • August 2015

L eng thy barrier repair s

S

pare a thought for the humble level-crossing barrier power pack. Every day it makes the barrier gate booms go up and down, up and down, over and over again. On small half-barrier crossings, that’s no problem. However, when the boom is over 9.1 metres long, so the centre of gravity is something like 4.5 metres from the pivot, that requires a bit of effort - in fact, quite a lot of effort.

So, although they were designed for the job, it’s not totally surprising that the poor power packs start to struggle after a time.

Developing an upgrade The problem having got worse over the last few years, it was time for a radical solution. Network Rail engineers analysed the problem over a 24-month period alongside a specialist team from Howells Railway Products.

A detailed analysis of both existing and potential failure modes involved the dismantling and analysis of over 70 power packs which had been removed from service at point of failure and were due to be sent for overhaul.

Along with information on service failures and the results of internal testing within the factory, a number of improvements to the existing design were developed and proven to ensure a trouble-free service life. All modifications were contained within the power pack itself, so no other modifications would be required to the infrastructure as the re-manufactured units were completely interchangeable.

To verify these improvements, a complete barrier assembly utilising a 9.1 metre boom and skirt was installed at the Howells factory. The revised power pack was subjected to continuous testing in which it was raised and lowered repeatedly every three minutes. Performance was monitored by a data-logger and daily condition monitoring, allowing comparisons between pre and post-modifications to be carried out with a typical test running to 50,000 cycles over a threemonth period for evaluation purposes.

Two trial packs were fitted in the live environment in May 2014 and these were trialled for four months before being removed for inspection. Further ongoing trials are in place

at several crossings including Navigation Road in Trafford - with an average of over 370 train movements every day, this is one of the busiest level crossings in the UK.

Casting, bushes and bearings One of the largest areas of concern was the connection between the pump and the boom.

Due to the angle of rotation when the barrier rises, the rubber metalastic bush employed on the existing units is stretched beyond its elastic limit and starts to shear. After relatively few operations, the rubber disintegrates and the bush separates.

This bush has now been replaced by a spherical bearing which allows free movement of the barrier through the required 80°.

However, the metalastic bush utilised at the opposite end of the power pack is retained as the movement arc is within acceptable limits and it has a secondary function providing tank centralisation.

A new casting has been designed which maximises the distance between the barrier pivot point and the piston rod, increasing the effective leverage of the piston and reducing the working pressure required to lift the barrier.

This is beneficial on all booms but particularly so when the pack is used on a 9.1 metre boom as the operational pressures required are greatly reduced.

Motor, damping and filtration During testing, it was discovered that the current 0.25HP motor was inadequate when used with the long (9.1 metre) booms. Replacing it with a 0.35HP version solved that problem while also greatly reducing the running current and temperatures, increasing the longevity and reliability of the motor.

In addition, the previous fixed-rate damper design was compromised by the requirement to utilise the same oil and ram as the pump circuit.

Howells has now separated the pumping and damping hardware and circuits by the use of an independent, sealed external damper, easily adjustable to reduce or increase the damping effort as required.

The damping can now be adjusted for individual boom lengths and weights, allowing a much softer touchdown of the boom. This increases boom and skirt life, minimises impact damage on the machine and reduces ambient operational noise levels.

Adding the external damper also allowed the existing paper filter, which was prone to blockage and collapse, to be removed and replaced by a metal edge filter which gives a much larger surface area and is more resistant to contamination and implosion. Free flow through the new filter is now 22 litres/min at 1-2 P.S.I. pressure drop at 16°C, far better than the 5.5 litres/min achieved with the old paper filter.

All of the above changes, and a few extra tweaks, have resulted in a much more reliable power pack that has now gained product approval.

In time, they will be retrofitted to those crossings where the long barriers are causing problems.

Everything from a transformer to a complete interlocking

An independent, family run firm with nearly 70 years’ experience in the rail industry worldwide.

From under one roof, Howells offer a complete service, having the capability to take a customer specification from product concept and design, through to full production and assembly using the latest manufacturing techniques and technology.

An innovative partner, historically producing a full range of signalling equipment from raw materials through to the delivery of finished goods, now with the addition of a state of the art NC machine shop to manufacture precision critical components for the 21st century.

Services also include the inspection, refurbishment and upgrade of various infrastructure hardware.

For further information please call 0161 945 5567 or email info@howells-railway.co.uk

www.howells-railway.co.uk WE WORK WITH: ALSTOM TRANSPORT SA RAIL PROJECTS LTD

BEML LTD

DESIGN & PROJECTS INT. LTD SYSTEMS LTD GURNEY LTD COMPANY

AMEY RAIL LTD.

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

GLOBAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION LTD MECHAN TECHNOLOGY LTD R.S. ELECTRICAL LTD

MGB SIGNALLING LTD

RUSTON / EAST COAST P/L

LTD

TEW CONTROL & DISPLAY

THALES GROUP

TUBE LINES LTD

TURREL LTD

NEXUS

ULSTERBUS

E.E.C. (UK) LTD

IARNROD EIREANN

CHARTER 3 GLOBAL ELFI SRL

GARRANDALE LTD

TNR TECH. CO. LTD

DAEWOO

GE TRANSPORTATION

MAGNUM CO LTD RIVVAL LTD

MAY

HYUNDAI ROTEM

SIGNALLING CONSTRUCTION UK LTD

SIGNALLING TRANS DATA TELECOMM SOLUTIONS LTD UNIPART RAIL LTD

BALFOUR BEATTY

COLAS RAIL LTD

LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD

SIEMENS RAIL AUTOMATION HOLDINGS LTD

THALES TRANSPORT & SECURITY (HK) LTD

UK RAIL LEASING LTD

BALFOUR BEATTY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

CDS RAIL

NORTH YORKSHIRE MOORS RAILWAY ENTERPRISES PLC

SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY

SIGNALLING SOLUTIONS LTD

THALES CANADA

CCI EUROPE GMBH

HITACHI EUROPE GMBH

NETWORK RAIL

SERCO

ATKINS SHARED SERVICE FACILITY

CARILLION

EAST LANCASHIRE LIGHT RAILWAY LTD

GM RAIL SERVICES LTD

SIGNALLING INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD TRAINSPEOPLE LTD

ANSALDO STS MALAYSIA

BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION (WORLDWIDE)

TQ CATALIS

TAIWAN ROLLING STOCK COMPANY TRACK & PROTECTION SERVICES

HOWELLS RAILWAY PRODUCTS LIMITED LONGLEY LANE SHARSTON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE WYTHENSHAWE MANCHESTER M22 4SS

62

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Developments in Auckland

T

he city of Auckland, home to the world’s largest Polynesian population and known to the Maori as Tamaki Makaurau, is the biggest in New Zealand. Currently about the same size as Birmingham in the UK, it has a population of about 1.4 million occupying an urban area of almost 426 square miles.

Like London, Auckland is growing at a great rate, and is suffering from property inflation and serious congestion on its transport systems. The projected population growth in the next 30 years is 700,000 and, whilst its numbers currently constitute some 31% of the population of the islands of New Zealand, this anticipated growth is expected to take it up to 40%.

The transport congestion already mentioned has the usual consequences; lost time, costs to the economy and so on. Worse, New Zealand as a whole has a poor transport accident rate, reckoned on some measures to be double the UK’s and double that of Australia. The death toll on the roads was 309 in the 12 months up to 2015, in a country of just four million people. New Zealand’s fatal road accident rate per 100,000 population is 7.4, over double the UK rate of 3.5, according to the World Health Organisation’s Global Status on Road Safety report (2012).

Although many accidents are out in the countryside, the roads of Auckland contribute significantly and, whilst not the worst, Auckland region had the third highest road death rate in the country. Each fatality has been estimated to have a ‘value of life’ cost of some $4 million (approximately £2 million pounds).

The Government and the City of Auckland have not been idle, and much has been done already to alleviate the intensity of road traffic in the city.

In particular, the Developing Auckland’s Rail

Transport (DART) scheme is now approaching completion and there has been significant progress to date introducing dedicated busways and bus lanes plus a cycle network.

Electrification and modernisation DART has encompassed a wide range of improvements to the Auckland rail system.

Like very nearly the entire rail network in New Zealand outside of Wellington, the city’s railways were mostly about freight and consisted largely of single lines with passing loops. Passenger services were relatively infrequent, and the layout and signalling permitted only limited increases in services.

Diesel traction, including General Motors locomotives from the 60s and 70s and converted early 1970s Mk2 UK coaching stock, was being used to run the trains. There were also a number of stainless steel DMUs, also second hand (from Perth, Western Australia), which ranged in age from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. Ten of these DMUs will be retained for the currently nonelectrified Papakura to Pukekohe service in the south of Auckland.

As a first step, DART resignalled the network to modern standards with Westrace 2 interlocking and associated equipment to ETCS Level 1 by 2011.This is controlled

by KiwiRail from the National Train Control Centre in Wellington station. The capability is there to upgrade to ETCS Level 2 when required with the potential to add ATO as on the Thameslink route.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

63

CHRIS PARKER

The system is being electrified, essentially to British Rail Mk3 standards, using gantries and masts produced by Eastbridge of Napier, North Island. That work is substantially completed with power switched on all electrified routes and full electrification of the urban network is due to be achieved by July 2015.

Significant sections of the urban system have been doubled to give full twin-track in the busiest areas. Some stations, such as Grafton (which serves Auckland University, medical school, hospital and schools), have been upgraded and work is continuing to create transport hubs at key locations around the city where bus services will link with the trains. The strategy is to reduce the number of buses going into the city centre, instead making the main priority for them the feeding of passengers from the suburban hinterland of the city into bus/rail interchange hubs such as those at New Lynn and Panmure, which have been built in the last few years, and those still not yet complete at Otahuhu and elsewhere.

Whilst all this was going on, 57 new three-car EMU trains were procured, with the order going to CAF in Catalonia, Spain. Deliveries of the new units began in 2013 and, along with completion of the electrification works, will permit commencement of the planned full-electric suburban services this July. Later in the year, after the new systems have bedded down, an accelerated timetable will come into operation.

The diesel motive power and old coaching stock will be largely gone by then.

Looking forward Things are much better than they were but more needs to be done. The improvements so far have already resulted in a rapid growth in rail usage (23% year-on-year patronage growth in March 2015), but this is not keeping pace with the demand as the city population grows.

Auckland Transport and the city authorities are therefore collaborating on a new scheme, the CRL or City Rail Link. This is designed to increase rail capacity dramatically and shorten the route for some key flows into the centre.

CRL will especially benefit traffic from the west which currently has to route anticlockwise around and into the city with a time-consuming

reversal at Newmarket. The programme will support and extend the ‘hub and spoke’ network fed by suburban buses and considerably reduce journey times as well as feeding into the true heart of the city at Aotea where a new underground station will be constructed.

The project will initially deliver a frequency of six trains per hour (tph) in each direction on most routes with many stations seeing 12tph in the peaks. On the core CRL section, the service will initially be 15tph in each direction in the peak. The design capacity, however, will be up to 24tph, the same as Thameslink in the UK. The initial service will thus be able to handle some 30,000 people/hour.

64

Rail Engineer • August 2015

The key elements of the plan involve turning the five-platform terminus station under the Britomart Transport Centre in the business district into a four-platform station with two through platforms, linking it to the existing rail network at Mount Eden. It will have gradients as steep as 1:29 (as Thameslink) and will include two new stations with the existing Mount Eden station being totally remodelled. The new stations will be adjacent to the Aotea Centre, a large cultural/educational precinct and commercial centre, and at Karangahape Road, a retail and nightlife quarter. The former will be 11 metres below ground whilst ‘K Road’ will be even deeper, at 33 metres.

The new route will largely be in twin bore tunnels under the city. However, it will start out as cut-and-cover from the existing station buffer stops, going under Queen Street and below the commercial block between there and Albert Street.

The owner of the commercial site, Precinct Properties, is a keen supporter of the scheme and has agreed to construct the tunnel under its site, to the design of Auckland Transport, in exchange for being allowed to redevelop over the top afterwards. The shopping centre development will be extended out towards Queen Street over the existing Queen Elizabeth Square on land which was council owned. Existing structures on the site will be demolished and replaced by new buildings up to 40 storeys in height.

The cut and cover construction is to continue below Albert Street, but thereafter the construction will change to twin 7.5 metre diameter bored tunnels, constructed using tunnel boring machines (TBMs) in a manner familiar to those who have read about the Crossrail tunnels under London.

These tunnels will make up approximately 2km of the 3.4km project, excluding cut-and-cover sections and the station boxes, and will be up to 33 metres below ground level. Some one million tons of spoil will need to be excavated and disposed of in the tunnel construction work. It is estimated that 88 subterranean properties will be affected during the works.

Albert Street

Concourse Level

Platform Level

Rail Engineer • August 2015

65

Getting under way

Crossings and junctions

The entire scheme is expected to take five and a half years to deliver (if built all at once), at a total cost of NZ$2.5bn (about £1.3bn at current exchange rates), the tunnelling alone accounting for around $500m of this. However, financial constraints will dictate a slower pace with enabling works scheduled from 2015-19 and permanent works from 2018-2023.

The enabling works are being totally funded by Auckland Council and Precinct Properties while the final works will require a government contribution. Currently, the scheme has received planning agreement subject to the resolution of six specific appeals, with only one likely to go to court. Properties are now being purchased and a survey of subterranean properties is under way.

The Principal Technical Advisor, an Aurecon-led consortium along with Mott McDonald, is completing work on the reference design. Detailed design commenced in May 2015.

Central Government funding to the value of 50% of the project cost is approved in principle, but the Government has set targets for rail patronage (20 million passengers a year) on the existing rail system and employment growth that must be met before they will release the first of this funding. Patronage is growing rapidly and the City is confident that the target level will be met in 2017.

In the meantime, the City is making a start on the project this year, having just awarded contracts for the cut and cover work which it is funding without central Government. The successful contractors are a Downer-led joint venture with Soletanche Bachy and a McConnell Dowell/ Hawkins joint venture. Some of these companies have previous experience of the Britomart underground station project in Auckland from 2004.

A couple of key issues about the railways in Auckland have been identified as requiring attention, and both will be familiar to UK rail practitioners. One is the number of level crossings (grade crossings) present on western and southern routes, many of these being half-barrier installations on busy roads. As ever, level crossings are a significant contributor to accident rates and cause delays to both road and rail traffic.

Some crossings currently carry so much rail traffic that the barriers could remain closed to the road for as many as 40 minutes per hour once the enhanced final increased frequency and accelerated 2015 timetable is implemented!

The other issue is the number of flat junctions on the rail network, again a cause of delay and unreliability. The DART project began the process of dealing with both these issues, and the CRL project will carry it forward. In particular all three junctions making up the triangle of new connections at Mount Eden will be grade separated. Design and operational concepts exist to eradicate others but implementation is finance constrained.

The CRL project will have additional benefits as it will enable further rail developments that currently could not be accommodated within the capacity constraints of the existing network. These may include rail links to North Shore and to the airport, and a new link between Avondale and Southdown.

Between them, DART and CRL will bring a whole new rail experience to commuters and travellers, reducing road traffic and improving safety. A familiar claim, but one that will be welcome in Auckland’s city centre.

Symonds Street

Karangahape Road

SKY TOWER

Central Motorway Junction

Vincent Street Mayoral Drive

Connection with Western Rail Line

Pitt Street

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

Albert Street

70m

AOTEA CENTRE

BRITOMART STATION

3600m 0m

Britomart Station (11m below ground)

1000m

Aotea Station (Approx. 13m below ground)

2000m

Karangahape Road Station (33m below ground)

3200m

Mt Eden Station (in an open trench)

Cut and Cover Tunnel Driven Tunnel Existing Western Rail Line

Note: Scale is accentuated

66

Rail Engineer • August 2015

CLIVE KESSELL

Innovation: Opening the Gates T

here is often comment in both the national and technical press that the rail industry does not give enough incentive to the adoption of new ideas or methods of working. Broadly, this comes under the banner of Innovation, but is this criticism fair or even justified?

The Railway Industry Association (RIA) has done much to encourage new thinking from its own membership of supply chain companies and has staged a series of workshops over the last few years. Organisations within the rail sector and from the wider engineering and transport industries are invited to put forward innovative ideas and make pleas for help. The latest of these events (the 15th in the series) was held in London recently and was attended by 200 people from 140 organisations.

Many see innovation as the invention of new technical gismos but, in reality, it covers much more than this and includes new management structures, operational methods, maintenance routines and indeed almost anything that challenges the status quo.

Neil Ridley from RIA, who chaired the day, thought that rail had only a mediocre record on innovation, the main problems being a disinclination to look outside the rail industry, a lack of openness and transparency amongst its players, a tendency to be adversarial and weak partnership capability.

The recent announcement that the Network Rail £38 billion investment programme is to be ‘paused’ in some areas should give impetus for the seeking of new methods of management and working, so said the IMechE CEO Stephen Tetley. A pressing need exists to get the next generation of engineers into training and apprenticeships since, on current trends, the industry will only grow 25% of the skills needed for the next 5 years.

Rail Technical Strategy Much innovation may well link with the Rail Technical Strategy, conceived in 2010 and heralding the biggest investment in rail since the 1955 Modernisation Plan.

It is focussed around six initiatives, the 4Cs - Capacity, Customer, Carbon and Cost - with Performance and Safety added on.

INTERNATIONAL HIRE & SALES

The SRS way In, on and under‌.

Carrying out structural inspections with the SRS Viaduct Inspection vehicle.

The SRS Boom and Scissor platform can carry up to five inspectors therefore reduces the number of inspection passes needed so resulting in less time on track.

SRS operators and vehicles are experienced and versatile to any of your tunnel drilling requirements.

AFE ELIABLE UCCESSFUL

FOR ROAD RAIL AT ITS BEST CALL: 0870 050 9242 email: info@srsrailuk.co.uk or visit our website www.srsrailuk.com

68

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Clive Burrows, from FirstGroup, explained how these have been migrated into nine study areas - control and communications, people, innovation, whole systems, rolling stock, infrastructure, information, energy and customer experience. Each group leader is charged with looking at the current status and predicting how this might change in the future. From that will come a technical strategy to develop a realistic solution or product.

Many areas will overlap so there is a need for close co-operation and not ‘invent the wheel’ twice.

Clive heads up the control and communications area, probably the most challenging in terms of technical complexity and range of options. Much is made of ERTMS but, in reality, its Level 2 variant is over 20 years in concept and only now is the mass deployment of systems happening. The situation is complex but, unless the removal of lineside signals can be achieved, the cost savings are not there and the capacity gains are restricted. The ambitious ERTMS Level 3, with its dependence on radio for train positioning information and the opportunity for moving block, has barely got off the starting blocks for a variety of reasons. So perhaps these systems should be bypassed with something a bit more imaginative in the hope of making better progress and yielding much-needed capacity benefits.

Taking an initiative from the road lobby, how about ERTMS Level 4 with the vision of a train convoy system where the lead train determines the safe distance for a following train? This would allow much closer separation but the critics will say the distance should be such that the second train must be able to brake safely if the first train stops suddenly by hitting an obstruction.

Advocates say we don’t take account of collision risk for trains derailing on adjacent tracks.

Network Rail's ERTMS/ ETCS test train at King's Cross.

A further logical step might be to let trains generate their own movement authority - ERTMS Level 5 perhaps? This could be a problem at junctions but, even then, with all the timetable and routing data available plus DAS and TMS (driver assistance and traffic management), a train should know where it is meant to be going. Blue-sky thinking is fine but it is a tortuous path to turn such ideas into reality. The remark that ‘Innovation turns Technology into Value’ may be something we should all remember.

Ideas a’plenty To facilitate innovative ideas from the audience, two sessions of ‘Elevator Pitches’ allocated those brave enough a two-minute slot to present ideas and also voice areas of need. Seventeen such pitches were made covering a huge range of subjects: »» Barry Ross from e2E Services on the use of small airborne platforms for better and affordable asset surveillance; »» Brian Tillson from Creactive Design on the poor design and robustness of driver’s seats and how these can be improved by using lorry seat technology; »» Mathew Conway from OSL Rail on how the experience of BIM in the utilities

Traffic management, along with C-DAS and ERTMS, could let trains generate their own movement authority.

industry can improve efficiency of design, build and ownership in rail; »» Phil Jackson from May & Schofield on the design of bespoke electronic systems for harsh environments plus the re-engineering of components to extend the life of legacy systems; »» Bernadette Culkin from Humaware on predictive maintenance and diagnostic tools, also advanced decision support tools for the early detection of failures; »» Eduardo Lazzarotto from Legion Ltd on software modelling to improve pedestrian flows when passengers have to encounter unfamiliar stations; »» Paul Turner from Evolve Technologies on the possibilities for electric, hybrid and hydrogen-powered rolling stock based on automotive experience; »» Neil Ovenden from ATOC spoke on the challenge of renewing obsolete LED lighting panels with like-for-like replacements, an obsolete air pressure passenger load weighing system, the need for an improved means of obtaining wheelset condition data and for better extraction of information for spares ordering; »» Chris Kinchin Smith, the current IMechE Rail Division Chairman, on the long-term passenger rolling stock strategy and how this might be refined for both practicality and finance; »» Brian Love from Connected Cities on the possibility of ‘Rail Taxis’, which could run autonomously on rail to provide a personalised demand with the possibility of coupling them in peak times to form a train - a branch line could be used to prove the concept; »» Simon Neve from Transmission Innovations on adapting mobile applications used by field service companies to give a real-time visibility of rail assets - gaining intelligence of the state of the electrified railway to allow quicker electrical isolations and re-energisations could be one application; »» Jonathan Wright from Network Rail’s civils design group on the challenge of ‘managing big data’ to create a railway with 100% more capacity at 20% less cost by 2030 using BIM and remote monitoring as part of the solution; »» Mike Butler from Icomera on the provision of a robust mobile communications platform with GPS to give a long life train borne WAN that would support all on board services, in recognition of the problem of train installations; »» Alex Froom from Zipabout on intelligent mobility platforms aimed at all transport networks in Oxfordshire with an R&D pilot proposed to test out door-to-door personalisation; »» Matthew Lyons from TBA Textiles on new technologies to improve the quality and resilience of protective clothing; »» Julian Maynard from Maynard Design on the means of designing information that can be used for end-to-end journeys, which includes behaviour analysis and new App offerings; »» Russell Edson from Withers & Rogers on simplifying the engineering aspects of patent application and the protection of intellectual property rights.

RailENGINEER Engineer • (130H Augustx2015 THE RAIL 90W)

69

Transforming the Market

by Turning Our Customers’ Wishes Into Reality

Approved Replacements for Legacy Rectifiers & Transformers • Zero Inrush & Insulated to 3kV • Full Certification Class II • Hybrid Rectifiers & Transformers • Eco friendly and High Efficiency CLASS II HYBRID RATINGS

250va 1.4kva

Economy Range

500va 2kva

1kva 3kva

• Zero Inrush & Insulated to 20kV • Patented Insulated Coating (GB2496062) • Full Certification Class II • Hybrid Rectifiers & Transformers

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR WORKING ON WATER

CLASS II HYBRID RATINGS

2 x 5ADC 1 x 10ADC

Insulated Range

2 x 8ADC

FT TRANSFORMERS LTD

01935 814 950 office@pontoonworks.co.uk pontoonworks.co.uk

+44 (0) 121 451 3204

www.ft-transformers.co.uk

FT Transformers Advert2.indd 1

06/02/2015 13:16

Travelling further for the rail industry The Allround Bridging System

From a footbridge spanning up to 30m to a heavy load support girder – linking safety, speed & versatile assembly with proven back-up & experience, every time.

HIRE & SALES

EQUIPMENT

DESIGN

SUPPORT

EXPERIENCE

VERSATILITY

EXPERTISE

Layher Ltd. ■ Works Road, Letchworth, Herts SG6 1WL Tel. 01462 475 100 Fax. 01462 475 101 ■ Letham Road, Houstoun Ind Est., Livingston, West Lothian EH54 5BY Tel. 01506 440220 Fax. 01506 440110 ■ North Point Business Park, Selby Road, Eggborough DN14 0JT Tel. 01977 661605 info@layher.co.uk www.layher.co.uk

FS 554413

Approved Training Provider

4671 Layher RE HP Ad 190x130 SDAW.indd 1

Z-8.22.64 and Z-8-22-64.1

07 P

VGS-L 10

20/04/2015 17:07

70

Rail Engineer • August 2015 reduction sessions as examples, generating ideas was not a problem. Especially interesting was hearing about the challenges that people not in the rail sector were facing.

Electric propulsion for road vehicles could well lead to solutions for remote rail lines where electrification will never be an economic proposition.

The corporate view

Focussing on the immediate need (Above) Could tram-trains, left, become a feature of British rural lines?

(Right) DIFCAM cameras mounted on the roof of a Land Rover for tunnel inspection.

Clearly, these ideas and requests cover a huge area. Some could be quick wins whilst others are very much ‘blue sky’ that could take years to reach any form of fruition.

To bring some element of priority to the thinking, additional contributions helped focus the mindsets of the audience.

The Rail Technical Strategy for control systems has been mentioned but overall it is much more than this. James Hardy from RSSB indicated that lightweight tram-trains for rural lines, freight train automation and assets that monitor themselves all demand early attention. Above all, capacity shortage is the most urgent need but can it be increased without expensive infrastructure work?

The Woking to Waterloo part of the South West main line is part of a case study to see what can be done. The current timetable of 23 trains per hour (tph) might theoretically be doubled if 60 second headways, doubling of train power, a fourfold increase in reliability, station dwell times down to 15 secs and a train mass reduction were achievable. Passenger comfort might also need to include ‘comfortable standing’ but that could be difficult to sell!

The convergence of metro and mainline signalling is another avenue to explore - so says Ian Jones from Siemens.

With CBTC, metros are routinely achieving around 35 tph, so why not the same for urban mainline services such as Crossrail and Thameslink? Studying the similarities and differences is part of the work but also being studied is how other countries are obtaining improved efficiency on urban transport routes.

Having both insight and hindsight on how a transport system is operating must be of value and ITO World has worked for the Highways Agency to capture the day-today traffic on the M25. The associated development of a Transport Data Management Platform could well be applicable to rail, or so says Richard Kemp-Harper in that schedules, real time running and service alerts would all be possible. Isn’t this what Traffic Management Systems were supposed to do, a project that seems to be stalled for the present?

Breakout sessions gave the opportunity for people to assemble in smaller groups and debate some nine different topics. Only a snapshot could be seen as to how these went but. taking the control & communications and energy

No innovation is worth pursuing unless an end customer sees the value of the idea. In the UK this predominantly means Network Rail and Jane Simpson, chief engineer - safety, technical and engineering, indicated where the priorities lie. She summed them up in two terms automated maintenance and the renewal challenge.

An urgent need exists for intelligent infrastructure, particularly in the monitoring of earthworks. Some catastrophic failures have occurred in recent times and the frustration is that it is difficult to predict when they might happen.

Tunnel inspections are another activity where automation would help. The wheel rail interface needs some new thinking, notably on monitoring rolling contact fatigue and dealing with squats rail defects. Grind and weld is fine but can it be automated? The DIFCAM project will hopefully produce a low cost, user-friendly intelligent infrastructure but it will be a long time before this is realised.

A long road ahead As David Clarke from RSSB said, having a vision of the Future Railway is fine but how to choose the ideas that would work can be difficult. Some things are obvious but others will be a challenge to assess practicality and value.

This 15th workshop is indicative that ideas exist aplenty.

However, asking the question as to how much innovative thinking from the previous 14 workshops has been adopted or is even being worked on, yielded non-committal responses.

In truth, coming up with new ideas is relatively easy. While sifting these into the realms of real potential as against the totally impractical may not be too difficult, turning the best into an implemented solution or product is an uphill task.

Remember that innovation and standardisation are strange bedfellows and the goals can be diagonally opposed.

It will take strong leadership to steer the way forward and to manage an acceptable balance between the various differing interests.

72

Repairing RCF Rail Engineer • August 2015

The IoRW’s 2015

Technical Seminar

T

he integrity of the track is a given on railways today. Operators and their passengers rely on trains running at high speed along smooth and continuous rails. That should be Continuous Welded Rail (CWR), and even that acronym shows how important is the integrity of rail welding.

So it should be no surprise that there is an Institute of Rail Welding. An offshoot of The Welding Institute, it holds a more-or-less annual technical seminar so that members can keep up with the latest developments. The 24th such event took place recently at the Riverside Centre in Derby, chaired by senior Network Rail asset manager Ian Davison.

Improved understanding of RCF

CHRIS PARKER

The first paper of the day, and one of the most interesting, wasn’t about welding at all. Instead, Brian Whitney, Network Rail principal engineer for track and civils, spoke of the defects that commonly occur in rails and how to detect them.

Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) is responsible for the majority of rail surface defects and is caused by the high stresses that occur in the tiny contact patch between wheel and rail. These arise from the vertical loading of the wheel and from traction, braking and steering forces which subject the surface of the rail to vertical, longitudinal and lateral stresses, all of which can be extremely intense.

RCF damage may manifest itself in many forms, typically squats (an indentation in the running surface caused by a sub-surface fatigue crack) and the surface cracks commonly known as gauge corner cracking (GCC), although in fact the latter often occurs elsewhere than the gauge corner.

The rail failure at Hatfield was probably a result of severe surface cracking. In this form, RCF begins as fine cracks that appear on the rail surface at right angles to the direction of wheel travel and continue beneath the rail surface, initially horizontally.

At this stage the cracks may join up and result in small pieces of the rail surface spalling away, leaving surface defects.

However, under continued traffic and without intervention to prevent it, the cracks may eventually begin to turn downwards into the rail.

Once these downward cracks grow deep enough, they can propagate suddenly under load, right through the depth of the rail, leading to a rail break. Worse still, where there are many such cracks, more than one break may grow in this way within the same length of rail, causing it to collapse into small pieces. This appears to have been what occurred at Hatfield.

Post-Hatfield, Network Rail adopted a simple method to classify RCF cracks into three categories based upon the visible length of the surface cracks. This was not ideal as the critical measure is not the visible surface crack, nor even the underlying horizontal one, but whether, and to what extent, a crack has turned down towards the rail foot.

Brian described the work undertaken by Network Rail to detect and measure RCF cracks so that potentially dangerous examples could be removed. In fact, it is important to find cracks before they reach a dangerous state so they can be removed in a planned way while they were still safe.

In the meantime, Network Rail applied an intensive rail-grinding programme as a crack control measure. If the initial surface cracks are removed in this way sufficiently early, they cannot reach the point where they start to turn down into the potentially dangerous form.

Rail Engineer • August 2015

73

Detecting cracks Network Rail’s existing ultrasonic test units (UTUs), fitted with Sperry technology, were able to detect down turned cracks but only when they had already reached potentially risky depths. ‘Surface noise’ from the top few millimetres of the rail effectively hides defects still in the early stages.

So, whilst the UTUs could be used to detect and remove the potentially dangerous deeper cracks, they could not find RCF in time to plan and execute removal before it became dangerous. So removal had to be undertaken as emergencies in very short timescales, incurring train delays and financial penalties for the infrastructure owner.

Network Rail has seen a dramatic reduction in the rail break numbers.

Between 1998 and 2015 these have dropped from 952 to 98 per annum with RCF-related breaks coming down from around 120 or 130 to only one or two each year. Network Rail has achieved much of this by re-railing or rail grinding, and the rest by the detection and repair or removal of defects.

This all sits in a context of rapidlyincreasing rail traffic. Network Rail is finding that the incidence of heavy and severe RCF is growing so the company’s strategy is to move away from manual track inspections to train-borne systems. Last year, the company removed 25,000 rail defects at an average cost of about £5,000 each. Without better asset management in the future, the major reductions in rail-related delays and costs achieved in recent years are in danger of being reversed.

To reduce train delays and to keep ahead of the expected growth of the RCF problem, the company needed a new RCF detection method that would find down-turned cracks

RCF cracks showing a downturn which would break the rail.

The national focus for rail welding technology and practice

Network for rail welding stakeholders Process suppliers Service providers Material suppliers

Route operators Scan or visit www.iorw.org for latest news and information on our next seminar.

Regulators Training providers

Institute of Rail Welding (IoRW) Granta Park Great Abington Cambridge CB21 6AL Email: iorw@twi.co.uk Web: www.iorw.org

74

Rail Engineer • August 2015

early. An invitation to tender against detailed requirements for a detection and measurement system received five or six responses. These were evaluated, and the chosen one was taken forward.

The selected proposal uses eddy currents induced in the rail head by electromagnets. The currents vary significantly when cracks are present, and this variation can be used both to measure the cracks and determine their position.

Network Rail worked with Sperry to turn this basic theoretical concept into a practical tool for use in a trainborne application. Sperry developed a rubber-tyred wheel probe similar to its ultrasonic ones which is able to maintain a consistent distance between the eddy current probes and the rail surface, a critical requirement.

The 10 probes are distributed across the width of the rail head to cover it from gauge corner to field corner.

The wheel has the advantage that it fits directly into the same carrier mechanism as the ultrasonic wheel probes, removing the need to develop a new system for this purpose.

The new detection system has proven to be very effective in detecting RCF cracks early. However, the challenge was the sheer quantity

of data produced - 100,000 lines of data per second. To cope, it was necessary to filter the data and digitise it into management information. The results are reports that indicate the largest detected crack depth in each metre of rail by each of the 10 probes.

Welds show up as cracks right across the rail head and 5mm deep.

These are now automatically filtered out of reports of RCF. Surface weld repairs are also detectable and can now be identified and ignored.

The project team has been proving the validity of the results by removing and sectioning pieces of rail to determine the actual crack dimensions for comparison with the eddy current results. This has been done for the whole range of crack depths, not just for the deeper ones, it being important to be sure that the system is accurate across the whole range. The results have been very good, showing that the detection system is extremely accurate and reliable.

The system is useful for far more than just finding and removing defects in good time. It is also being used to learn more about how RCF cracks develop, where they occur and why.

This will allow the linkage of RCF

growth to track geometry resulting in designs and maintenance regimes which prevent RCF initiation.

Rail replacement planning will be improved using the understanding of RCF occurrence and growth that it will provide. The application of premium rail steels can be targeted to sites where it will give the optimum benefit. Similarly, a more-complete understanding of RCF will result in improved planning of rail grinding and better modelling of wheel/rail interactions.

Further development is now planned. The next intended stage is the development of a ‘walking stick’ eddy current detection apparatus, and a trolley-mounted version is also anticipated. These will allow crack detection in S&C and detailed checks on reports from the train-borne systems when these are required.

Removal and replacement Having detected a defect, it needs to be repaired. Traditionally, that meant cutting out the affected length of rail and replacing it. However, Frédéric Delcroix of RailTech International described a new head wash repair (HWR) process for repairing surface defects in the rail head using aluminothermic welding (ATW).

UNITING EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY Further to the continued growth of the company Haigh Rail Ltd have recently added a valuable Welding Division

The Welding Division has an exceptional array of experience and capability, in these following Welding Services:

Arc Welding Capability Railtech Welding

Grinding Teams

Thermit Welding

GSM 053/054 Inspection

Full Weld Inspection

Aluminothermic Welding

Light Rail Groove Rail

Find out more on 01302 342188 Haigh Rail Welding Division, Unit 2, Crompton Road Business Park, Crompton Road, Doncaster, Yorkshire, DN2 4PW

Crane Rail Welders

76

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Simply explained, instead of cutting out a complete section of rail, only the affected part of the head is removed.

The missing material is then replaced using a similar ATW process to that for joining rails, but using a mould which contains the material and allows it to ‘refill’ the missing volume.

The technical advantages of this method are twofold. It avoids two conventional welds that would fasten the short length of replacement rail into the railway, and it can be done without having to de-stress and then re-stress the rail. As most of the original rail section remains, the process can be undertaken with the rail still stressed. This process saves cost as well as time - RailTech estimates an 80% cost saving.

Minimal new materials or equipment are required, as the moulds used are the same as used for wide gap welds, but with a smaller weld portion (8.5kg). Three possible methods may be employed to cut out the defect in the rail head - flame cutting (as proposed in the UK), grinding with a hydraulically-powered grinder (the preferred option in the USA) or the use of an electrically powered grinder (as preferred by French railways). The flame cut surfaces created by the UK method are ground off before the weld repair is made.

The process was initially tested at TTCI in Pueblo, Colorado in 2008, followed by UK testing in 2010 that led to UK approval in 2012. This led into testing in France in 2013 and approval there the following year.

RailTech estimates that some 80% of surface defects can be satisfactorily repaired by the HWR process. The main category of defect that cannot is the wheel burn, which is typically too long. RailTech is developing and seeking approval for a variant of the HWR process, a triple HWR repair, which will greatly increase the applicability of the process by allowing repair of longer wheel burns.

A further proposed development will, if successful, enable the repair of a squat that sits on top of a flash-butt (FB) weld. A key challenge has been ensuring a reliable seal between the rail and the moulds, around the FB weld collar. RailTech has developed a felt material that is sandwiched between mould and rail to achieve this seal.

Improved ignition Frédéric next introduced the STARTWELLTM system. This is an innovative weld ignition system that has a number of benefits. The normal ignition system risks the early tapping of the weld portion should the welder insert the igniter too deep into it. The new process eliminates this risk as it is ignited by a drop of molten metal that falls from the special igniter into the centre of the surface of the weld portion. The igniter sits in a fixed position in the lid of the crucible, which need not be removed to ignite the portion. Ignition is triggered by applying the special electrical igniter gun to contacts on the top of the igniter. A reaction in the igniter is started and generates the molten

drop of metal already referred to.

Everything is thus controlled so that the ignition of the portion occurs at a defined point at its top, and premature tapping is avoided.

Further advantages accrue. The welder is not exposed to combustion fumes as there is no need to bend over a crucible with its lid removed in order to ignite it. In addition, because of the nature of the ignition system, the materials are not subject to the strict international transit restrictions applicable to traditional ATW materials.

Documentation made easy Following Frédéric’s presentation, his colleagues Richard Kyte and Richard Vontak described the new RailTech AE MMS (Mobility Maintenance Software) welding software which has been in use in France for the past three years.

The AE MMS system is designed to ensure that welding managers, project managers and other relevant parties can easily and reliably obtain full records of the welds carried out by the welding teams they employ. It is a web portal system that operates between tablet computers carried by the welders and an internet server and can be used with Windows, Android or Apple software.

The welder’s tablet will download from the server each night the full details of the work the team is to undertake on the next day.

Upon executing a weld, the welder completes a form on the tablet which collects all required information about

Rail Engineer • August 2015

the weld and the welding process. The form cannot be filed if any of the details are omitted. Typical details include which contractor has employed the team, which team made the weld, which processes and materials were used and the portion number(s), and what grinding was done after the weld was stripped.

Other information may be captured according to the requirements of the project or client, for example welder competencies.

Easy welding of harder rail Track performance can be improved by using better qualities of steel, and Sean Gleeson of Tata Steel and Ian Davison of Network Rail were on hand to outline the properties of HP335 rail and discuss how it can be welded.

HP335 is a metallurgically-engineered pearlitic steel (hyper-eutectoid). It is used ‘as made’, requiring no heat treatment or other post-rolling attention. As Sean explained, it is made at Scunthorpe in the UK but some specialised sections are rolled in Tata Steel’s factory at Hayange in northern France from the UK steel. It has a finer pearlitic structure than Grade 260 steel and, as the designation 335, suggests, is considerably harder (335 is the Brinell hardness of the steel as-rolled).

Ian took over the presentation at this point in order to go through the catalogue of Network Rail approvals for the welding of HP335 rail. These cover the straightforward ATW and flash butt (FB) welding of rail into CWR and the welding of HP335 leg extensions onto cast manganese crossings. Explosively-hardened cast manganese crossings are specified for this application because this ensures compatibility of hardness between crossing and leg extensions.

Various repair techniques are also under development covering Manual Metal Arc (MMA) repair, use of aluminothermic portions to replace an excavated portion of the head, and flux cored arc welding is also planned.

Extension of repair techniques to in-situ repair of switchblades is also under development.

Other content During the day, delegates also heard from Chris Eady of The Welding Institute who gave an update of the European Rail Safe project. The current phase of Rail Safe is called Rail Safe-TR, since it consists of a project in Turkey. Its objective is to develop and deliver a training plan for Turkish rail welders, to meet the need for competent welding staff deriving from the government’s plan for Turkish rail transport.

Rail Safe-TR is about to begin delivery of training courses for welding trainers in a pilot phase intended to prove the methodology. The project is due to finish in November this year.

There were also papers on the current Control Period 5 (CP5) from Network Rail as well as the adoption of new tubular stretcher bars for S&C, as described in issue 120 (October 2014).

This all led to a full and interesting day which delegates were still discussing as they made their way back from the Riverside Centre at the end of another successful IoRW Technical Seminar.

77

Rail Engineer • August 2015

Photo

competition up and R

running

PHOTO: CHRIS HARPER - IPHONE 5

78

PHOTO: MALCOM SHORT - IPHONE 5C

PHOTO: SOPHIE LYONS - HTC ONE

Unfortunately, one or two haven’t followed the rules. A couple of entries were taken on proper cameras - this is a competition for Smartphone photos only.

A few have been sent through at a reduced size. This could be because they were taken at a lower resolution, so please adjust your camera to the maximum possible before shooting, or it could be because the email system automatically reduced the file size to make it

PHOTO: ANDY LESTER - IPHONE 4S

Rules and regulations

quicker to send. In that case, check your email settings.

With a closing date of 30 September, there’s plenty of time to take photos over the summer.

Send them to photocomp@railengineeer.uk (note - not .co.uk, just .uk) and remember to make sure they are at the full resolution your phone will take. We also need to know the model of phone you used and the subject of the photo.

Then one lucky photographer will win a KAZAM Tornado 350, reviewed in this issue.

Full competition rules are in issue 128 (June 2915) on page 77. In the meantime, here are some examples of entries we’ve received so far.

Can you do better?

PHOTO: CRAIG GELDER - SAMSUNG GALAXY S3

So far, there have been photos of people, trains, bridges and stations. Some are artistic, others show work taking place.

PHOTO: BOBBY HAYRE - NOKIA LUMIA 630

ail Engineer launched its Smartphone Photographic Competition a couple of months ago, and already some great entries are coming in. The competition was designed to show off the quality of photos that can be taken on Smartphones if some simple rules are followed. These include making sure that the resolution is set as high as possible, that the phone is held steady and isn’t pointed into the sun, and that as little movement takes place in the picture as possible.

PHOTO: STEVEN HARRISON - SAMSUNG GALAXY S3 MINI

PHOTO: ANDY LESTER - IPHONE 4S

PHOTO: PAUL SHERRIF - SAMSUNG GALAXY S5

PHOTO: MARK WOODLIFF - SAMSUNG GALAXY S5

PHOTO: LIAM FURNISS - IPHONE

PHOTO: STEVE SOUTER - IPHONE 5C

Rail Engineer • August 2015

79

80

Rail Engineer • August 2015

KAZAM Tornado 350

It sounds a bit like something out of an early Batman episode, the ones with Adam West in the starring role - KAZAM! KAPOW!! KERBLOOEY!!!

But KAZAM is actually a young and very serious manufacturer of smartphones and tablets. Founded by Michael Coombes and James Atkins in 2013 and now operating across 15 countries, KAZAM describes itself as “the smarter, sexier, more streamlined brand”.

Rail Engineer is giving a Tornado 350 away as a prize in the Photo Competition. It takes great photos, but what’s it like as a phone?

In a nutshell...

It’s certainly good value for money with everything you need in a smartphone and is available online from www.kazam.mobi.

The Tornado 350 features: »» 13MP camera creates excellent quality images; »» 5.0” HD (720 x 1280) display; »» Android 4.4 operating system; »» Good value at £189.99; »» Dual SIM; »» Dimensions: 140mm x 70mm x 7.9mm; »» Dragontrail Glass for sleek design and sturdy feel.

In your hand The first initial impression of British start-up KAZAM’s Tornado 350 was its quality feel. At a bargain price of £189.99, one expects a budget semblance. This certainly is not the case with its solid metal chassis encased in toughened Dragontrail glass creating a sleek and stylish appearance.

Maintaining its sleek design, there are no physical buttons on the Tornado 350, it’s front and rear cameras are flush to the glass and the power and volume buttons are almost unnoticeable against the edges. For easy access, the SIM and SD trays are on each side of the handset and are practically hidden against the smooth black edges.

Beautifully presented images The main 13MP autofocus camera is packed with a wealth of features such as panorama,

capture mode and face detection. The ability to film in 1080p at 30 frames per second means that this is not just an amazing stills camera, but a video camera too. Combine all of this with the preinstalled imaging software and the 5.0” HD display and you have beautifully presented images every time.

Intuitive operation As beautiful as this smartphone is on the outside, we all know it’s what is on the inside that counts….and KAZAM has that covered too.

The Tornado 350 uses Android OS 4.4 and the Mediatek True8core processor works seamlessly within to provide a great user experience. The octo-core 1.4GHz processor’s eight cores work both independently of each other for multitasking, or together when you need the extra power.

So that you can combine your personal and business phone into one, or enable the use of a local SIM card when you travel, Dual SIM provides the ultimate in flexibility. Over on the other side is the SD card tray. When a smartphone has as much multimedia capability as this, expandable memory is a must to allow you to store multiple movies or thousands of songs!

The battery life is a pretty respectable seven hours of talk-time, so unless you intend to be away from a charger for over 12 hours whilst still using your phone heavily... this should be ample.

All in all, the Tornado 350 is a cracking smartphone with everything you need from a lower end smartphone but with a high-end design and a camera that never fails to amaze with its clarity! Well worth the money.

SUSIE O'NEILL

ToughShield T700 Whilst reviewing the Kazam Tornado 350, we were given the opportunity of taking a quick look at the ToughShield T700. A tablet designed for tough environments, the T700 can withstand dust, water and drops onto concrete from up to 1 metre. This is the first tablet to offer an IP rating of 68 combined with Dual Sim and NFC as standard.

Operating on Android Jelly Bean and sporting an impressive 8MP rear camera, this rough tough tablet has an extra long battery life, making it the perfect accessory for rough tough environments. »» Dimensions and Weight: W: 610g D: 212.5mm x 135.5mm x 19.8mm; »» Environment: Withstands a drop onto concrete of up to one metre. Fully submersible in water up to 1.2 metres for up to 40 minutes. Total protection from dust and micro particles. »» Operating System: Android 4.2.2 Jelly Bean; »» Memory: Internal: 16GB ROM/1GB RAM; External: microSD, up to 32GB; »» Display: Large 7” TFT multi-touch capacitive display (1280 x 800 pixels); »» Connectivity: WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0 (LE), A-GPS (open area, static accuracy, radius10m), OTG Function; »» Battery: 6000mAh Li-Ion; Talk Time: up to 17 hours; Standby: up to 320 hours; »» Camera: 8MP (rear), 2MP (front); »» Highlights: Dual SIM; Near Field Communication (NFC) NXP PN544; Camera and Hot Key Button; »» Additional Features: Data capture: 1D & 2D Barcode Scan via rear camera (S/W) G-Sensor, Digital Compass, Ambient Light Sensor and Barometer.

So add this to your shopping cart too. We don’t want to give ours back!

photography competition Send in your smartphone photos to photocomp@railengineer.uk Entries must be sent before midnight on 30th September 2015.

win

KAZAM Tornado 350 smartphone

®

‘ You don‘ t take a photograph, You make it.‘

22/09/15 THE CONGRESS CENTRE LONDON

THE RAIL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT JOIN THE DISCUSSION AND HELP PLAN RAIL’S FUTURE, TODAY

Call 01530 816 456 or visit www.railsustainabilitysummit.com AGENDA 08.30

REGISTRATION/ COFFEE/ NETWORKING/ EXHIBITORS

09.15

Introduction to Sustainability Tertius Beneke, Network Rail

09.30

De-mystifying Sustainability Chris Leech MBE, Business in the Community

09.45–10.55

Session 1 – How can Sustainability fit into the rail industry?

The Government’s perspective on Sustainability – Peter Wilkinson, DfT Embedding Sustainability in Scotland’s Railways – Gordon MacLeod, Transport for Scotland Case study from AD Communications on Solar Power and the railway – Jason Pearce, CEO Q&A Session – Panel Discussion

THIS YEAR’S SPEAKERS Tertius Beneke Network Rail

Chris Leech MBE

Business in the Community

Peter Wilkinson DfT

Gordon MacLeod

10.55–11.15

COFFEE/ NETWORKING/ EXHIBITORS

11.15–12.05

Session 2 – Making the Environment and Sustainability work How can we be environmentally smart whilst maintaining cost efficiency? – Andrew English, Skanska Case Study from Northern Rail on their achievements in Sustainability – Gareth Williams, Northern Rail

Jason Pearce

Q&A Session – Panel Discussion

Andrew English

12.05–13.05

LUNCH/ NETWORKING/ EXHIBITORS

13.05–14.15

Session 2 – How to engage ‘people’ in Sustainability How does the largest construction project in Europe embrace sustainability, and, engage and reward its employees and contractors for sustainable practices? – Cathy Myatt, Crossrail Future planning - what measures are needed to ensure that the apprentices and graduates of the future are fully equipped to work in a sustainable environment? – Cal Bailey, NG Bailey How do we connect sustainability with the Economy? Is it possible to make this mutually beneficial for all?

– Tim Balcon, CEO of IEMA Q&A Session – Panel Discussion

Transport Scotland

AD Communications Skanska

Gareth Williams Northern Rail

Cathy Myatt Crossrail

Cal Bailey NG Bailey

Tim Balcon

14.15 – 14.35 COFFEE/ NETWORKING/ EXHIBITORS

IEMA

14.35 – 16.00 Session 4 - Support Growth in the UK CEEQUAL and how it influences the sustainability characteristics and performances of rail projects – Professor Roger Venables, Ceequal Is it possible to offer a joined up, integrated transport system? – Andy Dixon, Costain Optimising the railway - how does sustainability enable rail systems capabilities to be maximised whilst still offering value for money? – Anthony Perrett, RSSB

Professor Roger Venables

Q&A Session – Panel Discussion WRAP UP

Sustainability S us sttainability S ummit Summit

Ceequal

Andy Dixon Costain

Anthony Perrett RSSB

83

Rail Engineer • August 2015

RECRUITMENT

Technical Sales Engineer

Nationwide

BE THE FORCE BEHIND THE FORCES. DIO SENIOR RAILWAY ENGINEER

As the market leader in the supply of

£36,562

control panels and pushbuttons, we

Ref: 1462004

Full Time Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

are looking for a Technical Sales Engineer to help us maintain our number one position in the rail market.

You will be visiting customers across the country, supporting their needs, providing technical solutions and commercial proposals, assisted by our expert team. With an Electro and Mechanical qualification – minimum to Level 3 and a good knowledge of the UK rail market; CAD experience an advantage.

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) has the responsibility for the management of property, infrastructure and related services to ensure strategic management of the Defence Estate as a whole, optimising investment and, critically supporting military capability to the best effect.

The Senior Railway Engineer acts as Defence Subject Matter Expert (SME) and licensee for all MOD rail infrastructure. As the SME, the defence rail engineer also provides support and advice to DIO Service delivery, Projects and Land Management Services (LMS) staff and others to ensure that rail infrastructure plans and proposals are appropriately accounted for and that actual practices are compliant, suitable and sufficient to maintain standards and assure licence conditions are met.

For this critical position we are looking for an expert in their field who is prepared to make a difference in a key defence infrastructure field. In return we can offer you a diverse portfolio, opportunities to develop and apply your expertise an excellent work/life balance coupled with a competitive pension scheme.

Package, including car, pension and private health.

Apply with your CV by 18 August latest to: Elly Furzer, Management Assistant, EAO Ltd, Highland House, Albert Drive, Burgess Hill, RH15 9TN Email: elly.furzer@eao.com

If you feel you could be the person we are looking for, please visit www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk Please use the search facility and enter the reference number above.

Closing date: 30 August 2015.

The MOD is an Equal Opportunities employer and seeks to reflect the diverse community it serves. Applications are welcome from anyone who meets the stated requirements.

A Force for Good.

www.eao.com

www.civilianjobs.mod.uk

About SPX Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, SPX is a leading global multi-industry manufacturing leader with approximately $5 billion in annual revenue, operations in more than 35 countries and over 14,000 employees. The company’s highly-specialized, engineered products and innovative technologies are helping to meet rising global demand for electricity and processed foods and beverages, particularly in emerging markets.

Innovation. That’s what drives SPX Rail Systems, a business manufacturing rail products for the UK and international markets including Hong Kong, China, Australia, Spain and Singapore. With a dedicated team of engineers working from our state of the art facility in Dagenham, Essex, we design Point Operating and Level Crossing Barrier equipment to meet the demands of the international Rail Operators for both Conventional and High Speed applications.

Senior Design Engineer, Rail Systems

£Excellent Package

Design Engineer, Rail Systems

£Excellent Package

Location: SPX, Dagenham, Essex

Location: SPX, Dagenham, Essex

As a Senior Design Engineer you will be working within an ISO9001-2000 environment, overseeing mechanical design engineers, mentoring and providing support to ensure work quality and standards are reached; within this specialist design team you will be responsible for the design of mechanical & hydraulic products and systems, creating detailed mechanical designs / layouts using your 3D (SolidWorks) computer modelling skills, preparing equipment and material specifications.

As Design Engineer you will be responsible for the Up Keep and Design of Mechanical & Hydraulic product / systems using sound and industry accepted engineering principles and methods. Working as part of a team, you will contribute to the preparation of documented design inputs and outputs, creating detailed mechanical designs and layouts to meet international standards and customer requirements. You will be familiar with statistical analyses, mathematical modelling, testing and data analyses and be proficient in producing detailed reports to accompany design work.

You’ll support the bid process using your knowledge of design calculations to conduct economic evaluations, interfacing with our vendors. Using your previous experience you will also work on statistical analyses, mathematical modelling, testing and data analysis, additionally supporting the quality process, promoting benefits and driving the implementation of continuous improvement and cost saving projects.

In this exciting hands-on role you will take responsibility for building prototype product and the design and build of prototype test rigs. UK and some international travel will be required and forms an important part of this position, travelling to customer sites to oversee the installation of our prototype equipment this could cover night shifts and weekend work.

To succeed in this role, you will have initiative, integrity, composure, responsibility and the desire / ability to work in a team environment. You will also be aiming for or have already achieved Chartered Engineer status and ideally have experience within the Rail industry; applications would also be welcomed from other industries. A degree or equivalent in Mechanical Engineering is a must.

So take this high potential role and make it your own. Please apply directly via the website or send us your complete application via email to: gemma.parker@spxflow.com Thank you for your interest in SPX.

www.spx.com/en/careers-and-employment

www.spx.com

Influencing your energy strategies with integrated solutions UK Power Networks Services is a leading provider of electrical infrastructure with significant experience of working on high profile transport projects such as High Speed 1, High Speed 2 and Crossrail.

UK Power Networks Services: • Consistently delivers results on the most challenging projects • Can undertake the total requirements of any strategic infrastructure project • Has access to a wealth of international experience in providing finance solutions

Contact us by visiting: www.ukpowernetworksservices.co.uk

Consulting

|

Technologies

|

Engineering

|

Construction

|

Operation & Maintenance

|

Finance