Rail Engineer - Issue 161 - March 2018

Engineer

by rail engineers for rail engineers

CP6:

MARCH 2018 - ISSUE 161

Planned from the bottom up

COMMUNICATIONS ON THE CENTRAL LINE This month’s Signalling and Telecommunications Focus includes a look at how Sella Controls and London Underground renewed the Central line’s communications control system without disrupting services.

SLAB TRACK AUSTRIA

EXPLOSIVE CLAD WELDING

PORR and ÖBB jointly developed a slab track system that could be a serious contender for applications on UK high-speed lines.

Used for many years in shipbuilding, fastening aluminium superstructures to steel hulls, Nobelclad’s system is being used on lightweight trains.

www.railengineer.uk

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

OFFERING OUR CUSTOMERS PROVEN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

PROVIDING ELECTRIFICATION, CIVILS, SIGNALLING, TELECOMS, DESIGN AND INSTALLATION TO THE RAIL INDUSTRY Lowery Ltd have gained a reputation for quality and services in over 65 Years of Electrification Projects.

Offering a full turnkey capability from Feasibility, Design, Installation, Testing and Commissioning.

Lowery currently hold a Network Rail Principal Contractors Licence for Electrification, Signalling and Civil Engineering Works.

Contact us for more information

www.lowery.co.uk

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

48 Signalling & Telecoms

09 14 20 24 62 66

Feature News HS2 stations, Infrarail, Hyperloop, Finland.

CP6: Planned from the bottom up Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan for CP6, and how it was calculated.

Slab Track Austria - now a serious contender?

Collin Car visits PORR in Vienna to find out more about slab track development and design.

Explosive clad welding - coming to rail now Lesley Brown explains Nobelclad’s technique - new to rail, but proven elsewhere.

Drones Are they the future for track renewal surveys? They are certainly quicker and safer.

Is hydrogen the answer?

David Shirres considers a new fuel that could replace diesel by 2040.

62

28 32 38 42 48 52 58

Tipping the balance towards a digital future Steve Denniss of WSP participated in an industry think tank on the digital railway.

Discussion on “Making a success of the digital railway” Paul Darlington talked with Mark Carne and David Waboso about a new IRSE report.

Improving performance and capacity on the railway David Bickell compares conventional signalling with ETCS.

An international metro review Clive Kessell explains the latest thinking on signalling and control for metros.

Nokia? What has it got to do with rail?

The answer is quite a lot - GSM-R, LTE, 5G and the Internet of Things.

Reducing the risk from automatic level crossings Level crossings are one of the biggest sources of railway catastrophic risk.

Communications on the Central Line Sella Controls and LU replaced the control system without affecting services.

80

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

3

4

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

EDITORIAL

Digital delivery dawns

Since the early days of privatisation, the digital railway has been a holy grail, offering significant capacity increases and slashed signalling costs. Railtrack deluded itself into thinking that untried moving-block signalling could be part of its West Coast upgrade.

The company’s failure to do so brought massive contractual penalties, leading to its eventual downfall.

Since then, Rail Engineer has published numerous articles on the coming of the digital railway - one such feature in 2012 described plans to start installing ETCS on Great Western in 2014. For years, there have been high hopes, but not much delivery. Yet, as David Bickell explains, ETCS will bring capacity benefits by giving drivers a real-time movement authority, as opposed to conventional signalling, which only gives them an update when they see the next signal.

The digital railway was investigated by the House of Commons Transport Committee in 2016. It concluded that claiming a 40 per cent capacity increase was “over-heroic” and that Network Rail should not promote moving block signalling until it is ready to be deployed. The committee also felt ETCS is not a universal solution and that each route needed the best mix of ETCS, traffic management and connected driver advisory systems (C-DAS). Their key conclusion was that plans must be measured and realistic, with rhetoric matched to action.

Around the same time, Network Rail appointed David Waboso to run the Digital Railway programme. This is now led by a cross-industry advisory group, working in partnership with the industry. In January it produced a strategic plan aligned to conventional signalling renewal requirements (63 per cent in the next 15 years). This incorporates route-specific business cases and shows that £450 million of its CP6 programme is funded from the National Productivity Improvement Fund.

In a feature that considers why, in over 16 years, the industry failed to deliver an overall implementation plan, Steve Denniss reviews the IRSE report “Making a Success of the Digital Railway”. He also explains why those who implement the programme and operate and maintain the railway need both to have aligned objectives and to accept that they may not see a short-term return on their investment.

Paul Darlington reports on “a very constructive public debate”, an event to consider this IRSE report at which it was emphasised that the industry had to come together to make things happen far better and more quickly. David Waboso also explained how the programme was “opening the door for a totally different and improved relationship to get things moving in a collaborative, cooperative way.”

With digital signalling about to deliver real improvements on Thameslink and Crossrail this year, it seems that, after a slow start, a framework is now in place to make CP6 a turning point for digital delivery.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Our feature on level crossings includes their implications for ETCS as well as the use of video analytics instead of obstacle detection. In a report from the IRSE’s ASPECT conference, Clive Kessell reports on how Metros throughout the world use a bewildering variety of types of signalling and control systems, with many using CBTC digital signalling in the drive for more capacity. In addition, his feature on the recent upgrade of the Central line’s communications system highlights the essential need for Metros to have effective operational communications.

From new signalling technologies to developments on the track, we have two reports from Collin Carr. In an article that reminisces about his peg-banging days whilst surveying, he reports on how drones, flying at a height of 30 metres, can now produce cost-effective track renewal surveys to a 2mm accuracy, without interrupting the train service or requiring surveying teams to go on track. Another feature considers the innovative Slab Track Austria system and explains how the EGIP and Gospel Oak electrification projects have benefited from its ease of installation.

Using explosives to join parts together rather than ripping them apart is a novel concept, at least for the rail industry. Shipbuilders have been doing this for over 40 years as they join aluminium superstructures to steel hulls. Lesley Brown explains how Alstom is using this technique to give its Coradia trains lower floors and reduced weight.

In a comprehensive article, Nigel Wordsworth explains how Network Rail’s spending plans for CP6 (2019-2024) were derived and what they contain. The £48 billion to be spent in CP6 is a quarter more than CP5 and is focused on renewals - enhancements will generally be the subject of a separate business case to be approved by government.

The Government’s wish to remove diesels from the tracks by 2040 was mentioned by Rail Minister Jo Johnson in a recent speech. This called on the industry to explain how it will decarbonise and suggested that batteries or hydrogen are the answer. Whilst this call for environmental improvements is to be welcomed, there are, as we explain, sound engineering reasons why electrification offers far greater environmental benefits than such alternative traction, which can only be part of the solution. For this reason, Rail Engineer supports the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ call for cost-effective electrification to deliver the required carbon and emission reductions.

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

DAVID SHIRRES

NETWORK RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWA 2017

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS www.railpartnershipawards.com

A better railway for a better Britain

201 2018

WORK RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS 2017

The 2018 Rail Partnership Awards are bringing together the supply chain to celebrate the very best of 2017’s achievements in the rail industry.

The 2018 Rail Partnership Awards are bringing together the supply chain to celebrate the very best of 2017’s achievements in the rail industry.

Network Rail is working in partnership with Rail Media to recognise organisations which are helping to deliver a better railway for a better Britain.

There are 14 awards open for nominations and only the winners from those awards will be eligible for consideration for the coveted Supplier of the Year Award. Judges will give this award to the organisation that has demonstrated excellence and best practice in all work areas.

Network Rail Key Performance Indicators measured throughout the year will be taken into account, where appropriate, in making the decision.

Winners will be announced at a high profile awards event on Thursday 7 June at The Vox, near the NEC in Birmingham and tickets for the dinner can be purchased online.

Commenting on the 2015 Partnership Awards, Mark Carne said: “The Partnership Awards are a celebration of collaboration giving us a chance to step back and take stock of what we in the industry together are achieving.”

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS

201 201 2018

Who is eligible to enter? The judging process The awards are open to organisations, teams and individuals (excluding Network Rail and its employees) who have worked with Network Rail from January 2017 until April 2018.

Entries should be submitted online and will be judged through a two stage process. In the first instance, they will be short-listed by a team of specialists from Network Rail. A final judging panel that includes senior representatives from the rail industry will then select the winning entries.

Best project (large) of 2017

Best project (medium) of 2017

Best project (small) of 2017

For projects valued over £50m

For projects valued between £25m and £50m

For projects valued at under £25m

Recognises projects that have helped deliver a safer, more reliable railway with greater capacity and efficiency. It is likely that this award will represent the work of a number of suppliers working in partnership to deliver lasting benefits to Britain’s rail network.

Recognises projects that have helped deliver a safer, more reliable railway with greater capacity and efficiency. It is likely that this award will represent the work of a number of suppliers working in partnership to deliver lasting benefits to Britain’s rail network.

Recognises projects that have helped deliver a safer, more reliable railway with greater capacity and efficiency. It is likely that this award will represent the work of a number of suppliers working in partnership to deliver lasting benefits to Britain’s rail network.

Community engagement

Investing in people

Diversity and inclusion

Recognises company, community or charitablegiving programmes that improve local communities in Britain. It is important to show not only the inputs (resources, time, money spent or donated), but also the outputs too, such as the business and social benefits.

Recognises suppliers who have created an environment that promotes accountability, opportunity and diversity. Organisations will be able to evidence a commitment to developing people, for example, talent, skills, apprenticeship schemes, training and leadership capabilities.

Sustainable excellence

Safety

Recognises suppliers who can evidence success in initiatives which recognise and respect differences between people, whilst valuing the contribution everyone can make to the rail industry. Award winners will demonstrate inclusion and evidence safe and welcoming workplaces and fair cultures that encourage innovative and fresh ways of thinking.

This award is open to organisations who can clearly demonstrate sustainable and responsible ways of working. It can cover anything from working effectively with lineside neighbours through to carbon off-setting and reduced waste and recycling innovations. Entries should demonstrate how they have actively communicated with stakeholders to improve the reputation of Britain’s railway.

Safety should never be taken for granted, and this award highlights organisations that show a continuous improvement towards safety within the workplace and on or near the railway.

Preserving the history of the railway

Best collaboration Recognises organisations and stakeholders who have collaborated to bring real and demonstrable benefits to the rail industry.

Driving efficiencies

The conservation, restoration and promotion of Britain’s rich railway heritage are celebrated here – particularly with regard to Network Rail buildings and structures of national importance.

Recognises companies who have made strides in designing and delivering work more efficiently, to generate cost savings and value for money to create a more efficient railway. Entries will clearly demonstrate how they have considered safety, reliability, capacity and value for customers and tax payers within their work.

Putting passengers first Millions of people rely on the railway to get them to work, home and to friends and family. This new award will celebrate suppliers who have put the needs of rail passengers at the heart of what they do and can demonstrate that they are genuinely putting passengers first.

Supplier of the year Only the winners from the above categories will be eligible for consideration into this award.

Judges will give this award to the organisation that has demonstrated excellence and best practice in all work areas. Network Rail Key Performance Indicators measured throughout the year will be taken into account, where appropriate, in making the decision.

WORK RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS 2017 SME of the year

This new award will recognise outstanding SME suppliers with annual turnovers of less than £25m. The winning supplier will need to evidence excellence across a range of criteria from safety to innovation as well as being able to demonstrate successful partnerships within the rail industry in 2017.

Best use of technology

Recognises suppliers who have used new technologies to help transform Britain’s railway.

Entries could include new ways of working, cutting-edge technologies or novel approaches to benefit users.

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS

201 201 2018

Submit an entry

Entries must be completed online at www.railpartnershipawards.com and must be received by 5pm on Friday 23 March 2018.

You should also upload at least one photograph and you can upload up to six photographs in total (full colour/ jpg format/max 1 MB per photo) and up to two drawings or plans (maximum A3 size/max1 MB/jpg format). There should not be any copyright or restrictions on the use of these photographs as they may be used on the awards website and in materials relating to the awards dinner on 7 June 2018.

Any confidential information within the award entry should be clearly marked.

How to write a good entry

Use the following guide to help you structure your entry:

First consider whether your entry meets the criteria of the category you are entering. Then concentrate on demonstrating the value of the entry, for example, the degree to which your project has brought benefits to the organisation and the rail industry.

Overview

When writing about your project(s), you need to identify: • The goal your project was trying to achieve • Why you wanted to achieve it • How the project was delivered • What impact the project had In addition, you should also comment on the lasting contribution of your project, drawing upon the environmental, social and economic impacts of your efforts.

• What was the project about?

• What prompted you to act?

• What task did you set yourselves?

• Where did the project take place?

• Who was involved?

What the project entailed • What was your plan of action?

• What considerations did you have to make?

WA PIHSRENTRAP LIAR KROWTEN 7102 • What resources did you draw upon?

• What steps were taken to achieve your goal?

• What difficulties or risks were involved?

Entry rules and conditions

1. The awards are open to any organisation that has worked with Network Rail on or near Britain’s rail network, maintained and operated by Network Rail.

2. All entries should relate to work completed between January 2017 and April 2018 3. Organisations may enter as many categories as they wish.

4. An entry can be submitted for more than one category but must be treated as a separate entry each time, with its own online entry and photograph.

5. Should you be selected for the shortlist you may be asked for additional material if necessary to meet the judges’ criteria.

6. We reserve the right to submit your entry into another category if it is deemed more appropriate.

7. The shortlist will be announced by Wednesday 2 May 2018.

8. The awards presentation event will take place on Thursday 7 June 2018 at The Vox, Birmingham.

All winners will be announced on the night.

Objectives

• What exactly did you want to achieve?

• How did you plan to measure your impact?

• What was the scale of the challenge you faced?

• What would constitute real success?

• How sustainable were your targets?

End results • Did the project fulfil its objectives?

• What evidence do you have to support the success of the project?

• How has the project brought benefits to the industry and Network Rail?

• What has been the response of the community and the media?

• Did the project deliver any knock-on effects?

Conclusions • What lasting commitments has the project created?

• Did the project deliver any lessons for the future?

• Has the project triggered a change in people’s behaviour?

NEWS

coming soon...

APRIL / OCTOBER 2018 ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS With trains and their systems becoming ever more complicated, Rail Engineer’s specialist writers cover everything that improves performance, increases efficiency, and keeps customers happy:

Short list of HS2

Components, Condition Monitoring, Depots, Equipment, Fuel, Inspection, Interiors, Lifting, LightRail Vehicles, Lighting, Maintenance, New designs, Passenger Information & Entertainment, Refurbishment, Train Washing, Tram-Train, Underground Trains, Wheel / Rail Interface

station builders revealed HS2 has confirmed the bidders who have been invited to tender for its two London station construction contracts.

The designers of the four phase 1 stations, which are due to open in 2026, have already been revealed - Birmingham Curzon Street (WSP UK with Grimshaw Architects), Birmingham Interchange (Ove Arup & Partners International with Arup Associates and Wilkinson Eyre Architects), Old Oak Common (WSP UK with Wilkinson Eyre Architects) and London Euston (Ove Arup & Partners International with Grimshaw Architects).

Now the build contracts for Old Oak Common and Euston are out for tender, with the winning bidder to be revealed in the autumn.

Working with HS2 and the station designers, the construction partner will act as

the management contractor, responsible for procuring, integrating and managing the supply chains.

Those invited to tender are: For London Euston: »» Costain/Skanska Construction UK; »» Mace/Dragados; »» Bechtel; »» BAM Nuttall/Ferrovial Agroman (UK); »» Canary Wharf Contractors/ MTR Corporation (UK)/Laing O’Rourke Construction.

For Old Oak Common: »» Balfour Beatty Group/VINCI Construction UK/VINCI Construction Grands Projets/ SYSTRA; »» Mace/Dragados; »» Bechtel; »» BAM Nuttall/Ferrovial Agroman (UK).

MAY / NOVEMBER 2018 PERMANENT WAY Twice a year, Rail Engineer considers the elements that make up the permanent way – rails, sleepers, clips, pads, ballast and even the make-up of the embankment on which the track sits.

Ballast, Excavation, Fastenings, Geotechnical, Grinding, Installation, Lifting, Lighting, Maintenance, Milling, On-track Machines, PPE, Piling, Plant Hire, Plant Maintenance, Rail, Rail Handling, Repairs, RoadRail Plant, S&C, Site Access, Sleepers, Soil Nailing, Structures, Tamping, Welding

JUNE / DECEMBER 2018 ELECTRIFICATION & POWER As the UK rail network is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the UK, it is always investigating ways to innovate, reduce costs, introduce new power alternatives and reduce carbon.

Cabinets, Components, Connectors, Control Equipment and Systems, Cables, Distribution Networks, Earthing, Fasteners, Generators, Housings, Insulation, Lamps, Lightning Protection, Monitoring, OLE, Pantographs, Power Supplies, Security, Substations, Transformers

Want to learn how to win more business?

Join us at the Rail Procurement Roadshow to learn from leading procurement and tender teams and for rail-based workshops.

London – March 2018

Manchester – June 2018

www.railroadshow.com

London – November 2018

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

9

10

THE TEAM

NEWS

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

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

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Jolene Price jolene@rail-media.com

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

Part of: ® www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Exhibitors lined up for Infrarail Exhibitors from the full range of sectors working across infrastructure equipment, products and services to the rail industry are now lining up to be at the forefront of Infrarail, the influential biennial trade event taking place at ExCeL London during 1-3 May. The event provides a platform for rail industry professionals to meet, network and do business internationally.

With rail infrastructure in the UK currently a busy and challenging market, exhibitors recognise the high value of having a presence at Infrarail - an event that showcases the very latest railway infrastructure technology and expertise. Already confirmed are highprofile organisations including HS2, the Railway Industry Association, CEEQUAL, Crossrail, Rail Baltica, the Rail Delivery Group and the Rail Supply Group.

A broad spectrum of companies representing the entire supply chain will be exhibiting, including suppliers of track systems, communications solutions, acoustic barriers, pre-cast concrete, site welfare products and workwear being present alongside recruitment consultants, land surveyors, engineers and many others.

Businesses recently confirming their attendance at Infrarail 2018 include the likes of Shay Murtagh, High Motive, Industrial Communication Products Ltd,

Siemens PLC and Edilon Sedra.

In addition to meeting key contacts, securing potentially valuable business leads, networking, viewing products and exchanging ideas with exhibitors, Infrarail 2018 provides delegates with the opportunity to experience a packed programme of keynote speeches by leading figures, plus industry seminars, project briefings and discussion groups.

Kirsten Whitehouse, exhibition manager for Infrarail 2018, said: “Infrarail is now firmly established as the must-attend, definitive showcase of railway and civil infrastructure products and expertise.

“We are looking forward to welcoming hundreds of exhibitors from across the full range of sectors who will provide valuable insights into their markets. We’ll also be providing a friendly welcome to the thousands of delegates who engage with the event that will do serious business over the course of three very insightful, inspiring and engaging days.”

F U T U R E

T E C H

Bringing you all the developments in innovation and cutting-edge technology in rail

After the success of the previous year’s Rail Digital Summits, the Rail Technology Summit will look at the latest and newest developments in rail technology, looking at:

Digital signalling & Telecoms

Technology in Rolling stock

Stations and passengers

Innovation and Technology

26|04|18 Bird & Bird, 12 New Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP t. 01530 816 456 | e. events@rail-media.com

www.railsummits.com

12

NEWS

Hyperloop for India

India’s first hyperloop route is set to be built between Pune and Mumbai, via Navi Mumbai International Airport, following the signing of a framework agreement between the state of Maharashtra and Virgin Hyperloop One (VHO).

STRUCTURAL PRECAST FOR RAILWAYS

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 Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

The announcement follows the completion of a preliminary study into a hyperloop system between the two largest cities in Maharashtra.

A further in-depth feasibility study will now follow, further detailing route alignment, environmental, economic and commercial considerations and the necessary regulatory framework.

After procurement, construction of the public-private hyperloop project will follow in two phases, beginning with a demonstration track built between two points on the route. This will be constructed in two to three years from the signing of the agreement, according to VHO, and serve as a platform for testing, certifying, and regulating the system for commercial operations.

The second phase will aim to complete construction of the full

Pune-Mumbai route in five to seven years.

An electric hyperloop system for passengers and cargo could connect the two cities in 25 minutes. The same journey by train would take more than three hours to cover just 100 miles (149km).

According to the preliminary feasibility study, a Pune-Mumbai hyperloop could result in $55 billion in socio-economic benefits over 30 years of operation through time savings, emissions and accident reduction and operational cost savings.

At a signing ceremony with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, VHO chairman Richard Branson said he believes that the hyperloop could have the same impact on India in the 21st century as trains did in the 20th century.

NEWS

World's longest rail tunnel for Finland?

Authorities in Finland and Estonia are considering plans to build a 103km-long undersea railway tunnel – the longest in the world by current standards.

The two countries are separated by the Gulf of Finland and, if proposals go ahead, developer FinEst Link says it will create a metropolitan twin-city region of three million inhabitants.

A number of consultancies have helped to produce the project’s feasibility study, which has just been published, but there’s one big problem: finance.

Estimates put the amount of investment needed between €13-20 billion. The wide spread of figures can be explained by the lack of information on technical specification at this stage, but tunnel construction, two artificial islands, planning costs, stations, terminals and depots are all covered.

A public-private partnership model has been recommended to cover the majority of the costs, with an EU grant covering 40 per cent.

Even then, the study still identifies finance as the project’s biggest weakness, stating the financial prospect of the tunnel would be “challenging because of the small size of the Finnish and Estonian economies.”

But the study notes that further technical and economic feasibility reports are needed, to better understand the true cost and wider economic impact.

FinEst Link project director Kari Ruohonen believes that innovative financial solutions could increase the project’s feasibility and emphasised the improved accessibility as one

of the tunnel’s overriding benefits.

He added: “From the viewpoint of deeper twin-city integration and regional development, there could be major benefits from the tunnel.

“Geographically, Finland resembles an island and the tunnel would offer a connection to the Central European rail network.”

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

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

Rail Signalling Contractor £14m Turnover

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

• Key exclusions identified with current liability and works insurances which we negotiated out.

• Site survey, Management Interviews and Gap Analysis conducted • Risk Report presented to the insurance market • Fit for purpose cover secured with significant saving from that of previous premium.

• Recieving recommendations from this happy client.

£44,000 SAVING ON INSURANCE PREMIUM

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

30-PAGE

RISK REPORT TO

INSURERS

PUBLIC LIABILITY WORKS AND PLANT DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY

MOTOR FLEET

£14M TURNOVER

52%

SAVING

SITE VISIT

CONDUCTED

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage.

Jobson James Insurance Brokers Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority No. 516147

JobsonJames_Advert_01.12.2015_B_Amended.indd 2

15/12/2015 10:33 Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

13

14

FEATURE

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

CP6:

Planned from the bottom up

T

he next Network Rail control period (CP6) commences on 1 April 2019 and will run for five years until the end of March 2024. However, planning for those five years commences at least a couple of years in advance, goes through several stages, and takes up more and more management time until the Department for Transport (DfT) and the industry regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), make a Final Determination a few months before the start of the new control period.

There is, of course a degree of ‘horse trading’ that goes on prior to the final figure being agreed, not to mention some brinkmanship.

The process started with the ORR launching its Periodic Review for 2018 (PR18) in May 2016. The Secretary of State for Transport, and the Scottish transport ministers, were asked to produce Statements of Funds Available (SOFAs) by October 2017. Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan (SBP), published on 9 February, is based on these, and lays out how much money the company actually wants for the next Control Period and what it will deliver in return.

The ORR will publish a Draft Determination over the summer, and then a Final Determination by October.

Network Rail’s delivery plans for CP6 will be based on that and published just before the start of the Control Period.

The process doesn’t always run smoothly. For CP5, Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan requested a total

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

of £40.095 billion for the five-year period.

The ORR decided that Network Rail had ‘overegged the pudding’ and knocked it back to £38.293 billion, but giving Network Rail the right to appeal.

Stating that, in effect, no puddings had been overegged, Network Rail insisted on either receiving the full amount or it would have to cut £1.8 billion of work from the programme to match the financial cuts. An appeal looked possible.

However, pragmatism overcame the arguments. An appeal could take a year, during which time the upkeep of the railway would be at a standstill, so chief executive Sir David Higgins accepted the Final Determination on 7 February 2014, just seven weeks before the control period was due to start.

Better planning Back to CP6, and the process is well underway. As mentioned, the Secretary of State published the SOFA on 12 October 2017 and, in a remarkably concise document, suggested that Network Rail should work on a total budget of £47.9 billion in CP6. Of this, £34.7 billion would come from the government, while the remaining

FEATURE

Some candidate schemes for DfT funding for CP6 Committed enhancements »» »» »» »» »» »»

Thameslink Anglia Power Supply Upgrade West Anglia Main Line Midland Main Line (Key Output 1) Tram Train Pilot Waterloo (Phase 1).

Under development in CP5 for CP6*

£13.2 billion would come from customers (passenger and freight train operators) and from property.

In response, Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan detailed £47 billion of work to be delivered. So it seems much less contentious than the CP5 negotiations there is rough agreement already.

That may be so, but the CP6 plan is very different from that for CP5. Chief executive Mark Carne spoke with Rail Engineer the day before the figures were released and described how he and his team had arrived at the total figure.

The biggest change was in the way the required expenditure was calculated. For CP5, Network Rail had adopted what Mark Carne called a “top down” approach. By this he meant that, in general, the amount of money had been predetermined and the decision then had to be made as to what to spend it on.

Of course, that wasn’t entirely the case - the difference of opinion as to the final figure reveals that. But it certainly could have been the case for the general maintenance and renewals budgets. As for the third element - enhancements - many of the major projects involved were at an early stage of development so the costings weren’t accurate as, in several cases, the design hadn’t even been completed.

Small wonder, then, that these projects, including Great Western electrification and the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP), overran their budgets once they were actually in construction several years later.

So, instead, the CP6 programme was costed “bottom up”.

Over the last few years, Network Rail has got a lot better at understanding both the range of assets it has and their condition.

Programmes such as ORBIS (Offering Rail

Better Information Services) have resulted in assets of all types being logged, plotted geographically, and assessed as to their condition, their need for major overhaul and replacement.

This has given a work bank stretching years into the future. Statistics, such as 63 per cent of the network’s signalling needing replacing in the next 15 years, provide the big drivers for the Digital Railway, which has the goal of increasing capacity through running trains closer together coupled with cost savings due to reduced trackside infrastructure and more reliable installations.

Maintenance can therefore be planned, and costed, more accurately than before, as can renewals.

Enhancements in CP6 However, enhancements are still a problem. Network Rail has, in fact, a very good track record of sticking to cost estimates and delivery schedules once a plan is fully developed - usually within a couple of per cent.

However, if asked to guestimate costs and delivery when the design is at a very early stage, that inaccuracy can reach as high as 40 per cent as estimates get overtaken by engineering challenges, political pressure, contractual difficulties and changes in scope.

The solution to the question of how to plan enhancements better in CP6 is simple.

There are no enhancements in the plan.

But does that mean that Network Rail won’t undertake any major projects in CP6?

Not at all. Instead, they have been taken out of the Control Period planning process. In future, needs will be discussed both internally and with customers - the train operators - and a wish list of projects drawn up. These will be designed properly, at least in outline,

»» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »»

Leeds Station Capacity Garforth Station Remodelling East West Rail phase 2 Gatwick North of England (Manchester Piccadilly) Hope Valley Capacity GW Electrification Western. Rail Access to Heathrow Oxford Corridor Capacity Phase 2 North Cotswolds Platform Length West of England Platform Length Bristol East Junction Great Western DNO Clearance Work Western Route Flood Resilience.

To be developed during CP6* »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »»

EML Capacity Improvements North West Electrification Phase 5 ECML Traction Power Supply Upgrade North West Train Lengthening Bristol Temple Meads Station Capacity South London HV Grid Upgrade Reading Independent Feeder Waterloo (Phase 2) ‘Access for All’ Funding East Coast Connectivity Ely Area Service Improvements Kings Lynn to Cambridge 8-Car Acton To Willesden Electrification Ely to Soham Syston to Stoke Victoria Station Capacity Thames Valley Branch Lines Electrification *Not yet approved by DfT

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

15

16

FEATURE costed carefully and then a firm price and timescale offered to the Department for Transport for adoption.

If selected, the project and its detailed cost analysis and business case will be submitted to the Treasury for funding.

There, it will compete against road schemes, airport terminals, flood prevention, education, hospitals and a host of other demands for government money.

But, if successful, it will go ahead, properly costed and funded, and will be EXTRA money, not part of the CP6 determination.

So what, then, is the final figure in the Strategic Business Plan? The figures submitted are for £47.1 billion, made up of £18.5 billion for operations and maintenance, £18.5 billion for renewals (the identical figures are coincidence) and £10.1 billion for enhancements. Included are £1 billion for enhancement project development and a £2.6 billion Corporate Portfolio Fund (or contingencies).

But enhancements were to be considered separately?

That’s true, but there are several programmes that will either run over from CP5 into CP6 or have been delayed to CP6. These include the first phase of electrification of the Midland main line, the tram-train pilot between Sheffield and Rotherham, work at Waterloo and others.

A more complete indicative list can be found in the box nearby.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Devolution This new way of separating major enhancements from the rest of the programme, and only proceeding once a proper design, schedule and business case is in place, as well as funding from the DfT, should make a big difference to the way Network Rail performs in CP6. However, it is far from being the only significant change.

The most obvious is that devolution has really taken hold. As part of the strategic business plan, every route has its own, including the ninth ‘virtual’ route for freight and national passenger operators (FNPO). Each one spells out the plans for maintenance, renewals, and even capital projects, in great detail.

For example, the LNE and East Midlands plan includes spending £147.1 million on renewals between Gilberdyke and Mirfield, while Wales plans to renew the iconic

timber Grade II listed Barmouth viaduct, work which will predominantly cover the metallic spans and some of the timber spans and will continue into CP7.

In the South East, due to the current significant performance risk, earthworks investment has been prioritised over other asset types, involving work at 300 sites, or 30 per cent of the route. And the FNPO route plans both to push forward the fitting out of freight locomotives for in-cab signalling and to work with rail-charter customers to secure a number of ‘Strategic Charter Paths’, which would provide guaranteed gauge and vegetation cleared paths on core charter routes for steamhauled specials.

But it doesn’t even stop with plans for the nine routes. There are separate plans for Asset Information Management (obtaining infrastructure information from service

FEATURE Safety

trains, reducing the need for a dedicated infrastructure condition monitoring fleet) and Property (although no significant disposals of revenue generating properties are included in the CP6 plan, Network Rail will continue to divest assets to assist with the cost of funding the railway where a valid business case exists to do so). Human Resources, Legal Services, Corporate Communications - they all have their own strategic plans and, together, these build up into the corporate plan introduced by Mark Carne.

Another key feature this time around is the inclusion of a plan from the System Operator. This is a new role, led by Jo Kaye as managing director, and it is intended to plan changes to the railway system so that the needs of passengers and freight customers are balanced to support economic growth. It enables the delivery of new outputs to the railway system through planning of new train services, by providing advice to the franchising process and by specifying the service output requirements of any new infrastructure and broader system changes required to support output changes.

As an organisation, the System Operator has evolved within Network Rail, being formally established in May 2017. From CP6, it will be separately regulated by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) with its own settlement, in parallel with the arrangements for Route Businesses.

would have very little impact, in fact made an enormous difference, revealing the immaturity of many of the CP5 plans.

CP6, on the other hand, will not be so much about big projects. Rather, the focus will be on running the railway better, more reliably and efficiently. This is reflected in a 25 per cent uplift in the budget for maintenance and operations compared with CP5.

In addition, CP6 will see the beginning of the Digital Railway - the rollout of traffic management (TMS), connected driver advisory systems (C-DAS) and some new steps into the deployment of the European Traffic Control System (ETCS) remain fundamental to the strategy of improving and replacing the network’s signalling systems over the coming years.

The routes have not only produced their own strategic plans but will be funded as separate businesses, and monitored as such by the ORR, while still having the benefit of belonging to one Network Rail.

Overall, Mark Carne likens the plan to a Greek arch (below), with the result of ‘A better railway for a better Britain’ supported by four massive columns Safety, Reliability, Efficiency and Growth - built on the foundations of great people and great teams.

As part of the CP6 Strategic Business Plan, Mark wants a 10 per cent reduction in the train accident risk, as calculated using the Precursor Indicator Model (PIM). Produced by RSSB every period, the PIM provides a guide to the current train accident risk profile and any trends, calculated using precursor events data from nine main areas (infrastructure operations, signals passed at danger, objects on the line, track, earthworks, signalling, structures, level crossings and train operator failure).

PIM forms one element of the Passenger Safety Indicator (PSI), the other being the fatalities and weighted injuries (FWI) measure of personal injuries to passengers at level crossings and Network Rail-managed stations, as reported in the Safety Management Information System (SMIS).

Infrastructure Projects’ safety record is twice as good as that of the routes.

IP mainly uses contractors, and some of those have world-class safety programmes, so this is an area from which Network Rail can learn.

During CP5, there were sadly five fatalities amongst the workforce. All of these were as a result of road traffic accidents. Many vehicles are now routinely monitored, which has cut down the incidence of speeding, and details of worker travelling distances are recorded and assessed.

At any one time, some 200 Network Rail employees are off work with mental health problems - the second largest individual cause of absenteeism. This number is typical for the industry, but Network Rail aims to reduce it by, firstly, making it a problem that it is acceptable to talk about and, secondly, by ensuring that good treatment and support is available. Mark feels that, initially, the incidence could even increase as it is

Overall plan The result of all of these calculations is a clear plan that has been prepared in detail and shouldn’t have any unpleasant surprises. Mark Carne told Rail Engineer that CP5 had been the time of big projects - London Bridge, Crossrail, Great Western electrification, EGIP, Great Northern Rail and Borders. The reclassification of Network Rail, which it had been assumed

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

17

FEATURE 60,000 50,000

Incident count

40,000

30,000 20,000

Electrification

Signalling (incl power)

23/24

22/23

21/22

20/21

19/20

18/19

17/18

16/17

14/15

15/16

13/14

12/13

11/12

09/10

Points

10/11

08/09

07/08

06/07

05/06

03/04

04/05

02/03

01/02

0

00/01

10,000

99/00

Track

Asset reliability - Service Affecting Failures 1999/2000-2023/24. more widely recognised and discussed, but then should fall - he’s aiming for a 30 per cent reduction.

Asset reliability Train punctuality is not where it should be, and a lot of that is due to asset unreliability, even though reliability is better than it has ever been. Even more improvement is needed, and the aim is to reduce the PPM (public performance measure) deficit by 15 per cent.

Part of this problem has been caused by the popularity of train travel. Not only have access times for maintenance and repairs been squeezed, as trains run later and start earlier, but having more trains running on the network means that a shorter asset failure can now actually delay more trains than previously.

With 1,000 additional services to be added every day by 2021, that situation will only get worse. To further aggravate the situation, just having more passengers catching the same number of trains increases station dwell times, and so has the potential to increase delays.

In addition, PPM is not a great measurement of on time performance.

It is only logged at the destination, so delays during the course of the journey are not included, and it counts any train that arrives within five minutes of the timetable (10 minutes for long-distance journeys) as being ‘on time’.

A much better measure is ‘Right Time’, where the running of the train is measured at every station and anything over 59 seconds behind schedule is late.

The new System Operator, mentioned above, will work with existing franchises, and potential new ones at the tender stage, to sign off on timetables and make sure that on-time running is actually possible.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

One benefit of the ‘bottom-up’ costing is that it has set a plan for every asset on the network. So those that won’t need intervention in CP6 can be earmarked for CP7, CP8 and even up to CP12. The 15-year signalling programme detailed above causes a spike in CP7 and CP8, but that is basing costs on a like-for-like replacement, whereas digital technology could well reduce both equipment and labour costs.

Some savings could come from competition. Mark Carne was adamant that Network Rail has to be competitive in everything it does - “If someone else can compete then that’s good,” he said. He doesn’t see routine maintenance as being outsourced, but everything else, even high output renewals, could be if there was someone else to take it on more costeffectively.

The System Operator will have a role in this, as will external funding. But that will also have to be selective, as building a station (often financed by local councils) is very different from electrifying a live railway.

Growth

Efficiency As the routes will, in future, be independently regulated, so efficiency improvements have to be targeted and delivered on a route basis as well.

Overall, costs of operations and maintenance have reduced over both CP4 (2009-2014) and CP5 (2014-2019). For CP6, an overall efficiency saving of £830 million represents some eight per cent of operating costs, or a net five per cent after accounting for external factors.

With the new organisation, only five per cent of Network Rail’s employees will work for the ‘centre’ - all the rest will be out on the routes.

The fourth pillar of Mark Carne’s arch is growth. This includes the growth in passenger numbers, the growth in trains, and the growth in expenditure to keep the railway running and to improve it.

The doubling of passengers in just twenty years is putting a strain on the railway. The most cost-effective way of increasing capacity is by using longer trains. Where this isn’t possible, infrastructure-based projects are required to allow the use of those longer trains (and more trains), but these are expensive and can be disruptive to existing passengers.

However, the railway isn’t the only organisation that is building infrastructure.

In addition, over the next control period, HS2 will be getting into its construction phase. Heathrow will be adding its third runway, nuclear power stations will be built at Hinckley Point and Wylfa, and the water and electricity supply industries both have construction programmes.

All of these will also compete for government funding - another new

25,000

20,000

£million, 17/18 prices

18

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

CP3

CP4

CP5

CP6

CP7

CP8

CP9

CP10

CP11

CP12

Telecoms

Signalling

Level Crossings

Electrical power and fixed plant

Drainage (track + earthworks)

Earthworks (exc drainage)

Structures

Operational property

Off-track

Track

Long-term expenditure projections by asset to CP12.

FEATURE 35,000

30,000

Wylfa nuclear station

Expenditure (£millions)

25,000

Hinckley Point C

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Energy Sector (excluding Hinkley and Wylfa)

20,000

Water Sector 15,000

HE Projects

Heathrow Expansion

Heathrow Q6 & H7 TFL

10,000

Crossrail 5,000

HS2

Thameslink (London Stations) Crossrail 2

Network Rail Enhancements

Network Rail Renewals 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

UK infrastructure spend profile 2014-2034.

CP5. “I think four to seven years is ideal for a chief executive,” he said, “and CP6 needs continuity.”

He wants to see the business plan process through to completion, but then give the next incumbent time to get their feet under the table before the start of CP6. The role has already been advertised, and the final appointment will be down to chairman Sir Peter Hendy.

“I’ve never enjoyed a job as much as I’m enjoying it now,” Mark reported, adding that “the first two years were quite difficult and challenging” but now everything has come together he finds it really rewarding.

There is still a lot of work to do, with the ORR’s Draft Determination the next step, in June 2018.

Until then, there is still a year of CP5 to go, and targets set back in 2013 to be achieved.

But then, it’s called planning ahead…

Over the next year Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne is enthusiastic about the CP6 Strategic Business Plan. “The best plan we ever had,” he told Rail Engineer, adding “but I would say that, wouldn’t I?” Mark leaves the company at the end of the summer, having been in post since January 2014, shortly before the start of

Efficiency over CP6 by route.

25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.8% 10.0%

7.5% 7.5%

9.6%

6.6%

8.9% 9.2% 8.3% 8.2%

6.6%

7.8%

NR total

Non-route

Routes

Western

Wessex

Wales

South East

Scotland

0.0%

LNW

5.0%

LNEEM

The foundations of everything, in Mark Carne’s ‘arched’ view of CP6, are the industry’s people. Network Rail itself employs around 40,000, with perhaps 200,000 working in the industry as a whole.

However, rail has been criticised, along with a lot of the engineering sector, for not being diverse enough. Mark Carne was keen to point out that improvements have been made - Network Rail has employed 32 per cent more women over the last four years, but he admits that is starting at a low base (currently 16.8 per cent overall). Another 50 per cent will be added in CP6, and part of that growth will be from making the job more attractive to women. By the end of 2019, every worksite will have adequate toilet and changing facilities (although that begs the question, why don’t they now?) and no trains will discharge toilet waste onto the tracks.

Hopefully, these moves will help tone down the railway’s sometimes ‘macho’ image and attract young female graduates to the industry, amongst others.

Other initiatives will focus on ethnic minorities and the disabled. Network Rail recruitment teams have already received training on how to avoid ‘unconscious bias’ and that will continue during CP6 as the diversity of the industry increases.

Network Rail was ranked 66th in the top 100 graduate employers last year, up ten

Anglia

People

places from the previous year, and aims to be in the top 25. The company is proud to lead the industry in the development of apprenticeships across all levels in a range of technical and professional roles, offering a wide range of interesting and rewarding career opportunities.

Contractors will continue to be required to employ one new apprentice for every £3 million of contract value, after reaching a threshold of £10 million.

Gross efficiency (%)

challenge for Network Rail and for those that write the business cases to support enhancement projects.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

19

20

FEATURE

Slab Track Austria

Now a Serious Contender?

R

emember concrete paved roads? You don’t see many of them now. I wonder why? Well, the continuous bump, bump, bump while riding along was enough to put anyone off, even the most hardy of travellers. I often wonder whether that road experience has stayed in our psyche and is one of the reasons why the idea of a paved, or, as we would prefer to say in railways, slab track has always met with scepticism and some resistance.

Enough of this psychology. Whatever the reasons were for not taking slab track seriously, attitudes have been slowly changing over the last decade or so. Up until now, the use of slab track on the UK rail network has been confined to a few tunnels with restricted clearances alongside a small, random list of sites with similar restrictions.

Rail Engineer has written a number of articles on this subject, such as the trials in Asfordby Tunnel near Melton Mowbray (issue 116, June 2014) where PORR Slab Track Austria was employed.

Since then, the same system has been installed in Winchburgh Tunnel near Edinburgh, Queen St. Tunnel in Glasgow, and on Gospel Oak in London. It has had a full Product Approval from Network Rail since January 2017.

PORR is a construction company based in the Austrian capital and the oldest company listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange.

Formed in 1869 by Arthur Porr, hence the

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

name, it now employs more than 19,000 people and is involved in many major projects, across Austria, Germany, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Middle East, as well as some railway work in the UK.

Early partnership Since the late 1970s, PORR has been working in partnership with Austrian Railways (ÖBB) to develop a sustainable and cost-effective form of slab track. This partnership has been very successful because, from the outset, both parties were able to play an integral part in developing a sustainable and efficient design that both meets the client’s specification and can be constructed in an efficient and safe manner.

Both client and contractor’s aspirations have been met - an outcome that is often pursued but not always achieved. The system they jointly developed is now known as Slab Track Austria (STA).

The resulting PORR STA system has been extensively used on a major rail initiative in Germany. Back in 1991, shortly after reunification, the German government wanted to improve transport links between East and West Germany. It created a construction project, VDE 8, for a new 300km/h high-speed line between Berlin and Munich.

PORR was contracted to design and build three major sections of the railway route.

Its patented slab track, STA, was installed over a total length of 320km, in tunnels, on bridges and in open sections. Operations started successfully in December 2015

COLLIN CARR

on the VDE 8.2 section, from Erfurt to Leipzig and Halle. Since December 2017, the sections VDE 8.1.2, from Coburg to Illmenau, and VDE 8.1.3, from Bad Staffelstein to Coburg, have been in operation. Trains have been running on the STA slab track layout at speeds of 300km/h.

Prior to commissioning, this slab track was tested at 330 km/h.

Slab design The oldest section of STA was actually installed back in 1989, so it has been around for some time. But what is so special about this slab-track design?

It is based on a cleverly designed slab of concrete - 5.2 metres long, 2.4 metres wide and 0.16 metres deep, weighing about five tonnes. However, a unique attribute of the STA is that the width of the slab can be reduced down to 2.1 metres where there are problems with clearances, often found in old Victorian tunnels on the UK network.

The slab itself is precast and can be made, either in a precast concrete factory or at an on-site facility established specially for the project. In either case, PORR is able to ensure that high levels of quality control are maintained at all times, the work is carried out in a safe environment minimising the activities on site and reducing the risk to its employees.

FEATURE BERLIN

Elastomeric layer ng

n

rli

Be

htu

Ric

Bitterfeld

Sachsen-Anhalt

Sachsen

Halle

Halle

Leipzig Osterbergtunnel

Unstruttalbrücke

Bibratunnel

Saubachtalbrücke

Tunnel Augustaburg

Weißenfels Zeiz

Erfurt

Jena

hausen

Gera

Thüringen

Tunnel Behringen Wipfratalbrücke

Ilmenau

Altenburg Chemnitz

Tunnel Sandberg Humbachtalbrücke

Ilmenau

Rudolstadt

Tunnel Lohme

Suhl

Plauen

Grümpentalbrücke Talbrücke Pö pelholz Tunnel Reitersberg

Coburg

Coburg

Froschgrundsee Fornbachbrücke Kiengrundbrücke Füllbachtalbrücke Tunnel Füllbach Talbr. Weißenbrunn Mühlbachbrücke Stadelbachbrücke

a.F.

Bad Staffelstein Ebensfeld Bayern

Bayreuth

Bayreuth

Bamberg Forchheim

Weiden

Erlangen Regnitztalbrücke

Fürth

Nürnberg

MUNICH

Amberg

Legend New Railway Existing Railway Viaduct Tunnel

The reinforced concrete slab is not tensioned and the rail support seats are integrated into the design. There are two rectangular openings, each 0.64 metres by 0.92 metres, located in the centre of the slab.

However, one of the key elements of the slab design is the elastomeric layer, manufactured from recycled rubber, which covers the soffit of the slab and the sides of the two tapered openings. This elasticity, plus the elasticity of the rail pads, enables stresses created by train movement to be dissipated, absorbing vertical movement of up to 1.5mm. The elastomeric layer also helps to reduce vibration and structureborne noise, thus offering protection to supporting structures and reducing the noise created by passing trains - an important feature in built-up areas and tunnels.

In each slab there are five small holes, approximately 50mm in diameter, one in each corner of the slab and one in the centre, designed to accommodate simple screw jacks. The jacks are used on-site to provide finite adjustment of the slab level before pouring self-compacting concrete through the two rectangular openings to secure the slab in its final location.

Maintaining track alignment The self-compacting concrete requires no vibration, which further reduces the activities and risk on site and minimises the risk of any movement in the slab, thus ensuring track alignment is maintained during construction. The two rectangular openings, which are slightly tapered, are now full of reinforced concrete and the tapered shape of these openings helps the slab to resist lateral and vertical forces and works as an anchor to ensure the slab remains secure.

Each slab is separated from the next one by a 40mm joint, allowing for expansion or any form of deformation that could be caused by creep, shrinkage or temperature changes. These gaps can also serve as drainage outlets for surface water as well as providing a pathway for any cables that need to cross the track.

There is a specification for the construction of transitions from slab track to ballasted track that involves the use of synthetic resin to strengthen the ballast by varying degrees from totally interlocked ballast to freeflowing.

With regard to transitions from straight to curved track, STA offers two options.

The first allows for conventionally shaped

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

21

22

FEATURE

slabs to be placed in position, with adjustments made using the screw jacks, whilst the second option allows for the slab to be specially cast in the factory with the transition built-in. Both options have been used very successfully, the choice is usually determined by client preference.

Flexibility in design Because of the flexibility available when working in a factory environment, slabs have been designed to accommodate switch and crossing layouts. Also, concrete guide rails can be adapted into the design, which has proved popular on the slabs that have been designed for the Doha metro system in the capital of Qatar. PORR is installing STA slabs across the 162km Doha network, with work expected to be completed later this year.

Slab design can be adjusted to accommodate most requirements, including one that will be welcomed by the infrastructure maintainer - dedicated track access points. Additional units designed to sit level with the rail head can be incorporated into the design to enable road/rail vehicles, trolleys and emergency vehicles to gain easy access without damaging the infrastructure as well as providing protection against derailment.

Whole Life Cost The design life of an STA slab is 60 years, although detailed research suggests that this could be extended to as much as 80 years. The cost of construction is quite low, given that the process uses low-mass concrete and is fairly straightforward.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Cost analysis research suggests that the savings made from the reduced maintenance required for STA track will equate to a payback of within 15 to 20 years when compared to ballasted track systems.

The opportunity for significant savings, as well as increased network availability due to the reduced maintenance requirement, has to mean that this system is a serious contender for any new railway route, one of which, of course, is HS2.

However, inevitably things will go wrong. A derailment caused by a ‘hot box’ could damage a significant length

of track and there is always the possibility of sub-base settlement. These are always understandable points raised against the use of slab track. So how would the STA design cope with these problems when they arise?

The answer is really quite simple. If the problem is local settlement, then the existing slab would be released by drilling out the concrete fill in the tapered openings. The screw jacks would then be used to raise the slab into the correct position, after which it would be beddedin by pouring fresh self-compacting concrete through the openings into the newly created void. Adequate strength is achieved within 24 hours.

Smaller adjustments can be made through the rail fastening system, without the need to alter the level of the slab.

With regard to derailments causing damage to the slab, the expectation is that, in most cases, this will be limited to the haunches around the rail base plates, leaving the slab itself intact. Replacing the plates themselves is quite straightforward and quick to do. Any repairs to the surrounding concrete seating and slab would be carried out at the same time, allowing trains to run at a reduced speed dependent on the severity of the damage.

As a last resort, slabs could be replaced, but research carried out by PORR and Ă–BB suggests that this would only be needed in exceptional circumstances.

FEATURE

Benefits of early engagement As already intimated, PORR is obviously keen to be involved in the development of HS2 and the experience gained from the construction of the aforementioned German high-speed route highlights the benefit of early contractor involvement and an integrated design and construction process.

To understand, at an early stage, the type of track required enables the design team to consider its effect on the design of viaducts, tunnels and embankments.

The HS2 team will have to make some difficult decisions, and soon. It appears that it has already decided that the line throughout should have a concrete sub-

base, which clearly indicates that slab track is a serious option. PORR, like its competitors, has already lined up partners for the precast construction of the slabs and for the many other aspects related to the construction of a new railway. It is a very complex process, however the potential rewards are significant.

Clearly, in collaboration with the client Ă–BB, PORR has developed a slab track product that has been proven suitable for a high-speed railway at speeds in excess of 300km/h. The cost/benefit analysis is very persuasive and the slab design is kept simple, yet has subtle appealing differentiators. The quality of the precast unit can be assured, and the process of installation on-site is a highly sophisticated operation, developed over decades with highly trained teams well-versed in educating and supervising a local workforce.

As has already been proven, the speeds that HS2 require are attainable and the PORR STA system offers a high quality, durable and sustainable solution.

It is a very interesting time for the UK rail industry. Many key decisions are going to be made over the coming months and certainly PORR, with its STA system, must be a very serious contender.

Watch this space!

Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group The UK’s leading slab track design and build specialist

Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group has introduced Slab Track Austria (STA) to the UK infrastructure.

Installations include Winchburgh Tunnel, Queen Street Tunnel and Gospel Oak to Barking projects.

Reduced Construction Times s High Speed Operations s Cost Effective s Quality Assured Minimal Maintenance s Low Construction Height s Network Rail Approved Engineering Excellence to Slab Track Installations.

Consultancy s Design s Construction s Maintenance s Refurbishment Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group I T +44 300 3030230 info@rhomberg-sersa.com I www.rhomberg-sersa.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

23

24

FEATURE

LESLEY BROWN

Explosive clad welding coming to rail now

W

hat’s in a transition joint? “More, much more, than meets the eye - when it’s explosion welded,” says David Gauthier, Market Specialist in Multi-material Transition Joints at NobelClad. Used in shipbuilding for decades, the railway industry is now waking up to the potential of this ‘solid-state’ technique for joining dissimilar metals that, due to their metallurgy, can’t be welded in the traditional manner (by fusion).

“For over 40 years, we have supplied the shipbuilding industry with these joints for assembling aluminium superstructures and steel hulls,” he told Rail Engineer. “Everywhere where it’s useful, or necessary, to combine aluminium and steel in the structure, explosion welding is probably the most reliable solution.”

The method uses extremely high levels of energy derived from civil explosives, plus the speed of impact between the two metals, to create a solid-state weld with unique properties (more of which later). “We’re not mixing or modifying the metals, yet can achieve an extremely strong metallurgical bond,” David explained. “Also, you could say it’s a positive process, because we are using the force of an explosive to create, rather than destroy something,” he added.

NobelClad has already provided its explosion-clad transition joints (part of the company’s RailCladTM range of products) for Alstom’s Coradia family of intercity and regional trains, to connect aluminium train decks to the steel chassis.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

“With explosion welding, we produce large steel and aluminium plates, then cut them into bars around three-metres long,” David Gauthier continued. “Next, these bars are machined to remove excess materials and produce a lightweight, H-shaped profile. So, for the Coradia, half the profile is in aluminium and the other half, the other side, in steel. We call it a transition joint because the customer can then weld on elements in aluminium to steel, and vice versa.”

A typical transition joint between aluminium and steel structures.

FEATURE

Explosion welding can replace conventional bolted joints.

NobelClad started the development process with Alstom in 2008 and deliveries in early 2010. To date, the company has supplied these transition joints for 1,000 coaches that are already in service.

Unique properties For rail engineers, joining highly dissimilar metals such as aluminium to steel represents a challenge during assembly design. Innovative thinking and solutions are needed to join these critical components together into finished structures.

Traditional methods such as bolts, rivets or glues are always options, yet these mechanical fasteners invariably raise questions over installation and inspection costs, as well as failure rates, during the life of the train. Another pressure is the current

onus on aspects such as reducing the weight of rolling stock and streamlining maintenance costs.

Explosion welding speeds up production rates, says NobelClad, since the method overcomes the time-consuming issue of assembling several hundred rivets across, say, a 10-metre expanse. The joints have also helped to build coaches with low floors, in line with accessibility regulations now in force. With previous generations of trains, the rivet-based design required a special support structure under the floor.

Thanks to the explosion welds, these beams are unnecessary and there’s enough room to lower the floors by about 20 to 30cm compared to previous generations.

“By using aluminium and steel together in this way, we can help both lower the floors and lighten the overall weight

of the coach,” said Mr Gauthier. Then there are the complex flows caused by interaction between the underfloors of coaches and tracks. With a riveted undercarriage, this flying ballast phenomenon tends to break the rivet heads, generating extra maintenance for the train operator. With explosion weld clad, which delivers a flat undercarriage, this problem is effectively eliminated.

Corrosion is another bugbear. It is likely to occur where there’s riveting, but hardly likely with explosion-bonded transition joints, which have already proven their worth in shipbuilding for operation in harsh environments near salt-water splash zones. Water tight, they effectively avoid having to add insulation products between riveted plates for sealing.

Another benefit of this type of weld is robustness in terms of mechanical resistance. As David Gauthier stated: “We supply bars with a metallurgic bond across the whole surface, which is mechanically far more robust than riveting.”

Riveting still matters Despite the adoption of new techniques such as explosion welding, train builders will continue to count on riveting for assembling similar metals where joints are unnecessary. Also, given their permanent state, explosion weld clads are not suited to parts designed to be dismantled. And then there’s the cost factor.

“A handful of rivets is cheaper than one of our bars. So it makes sense that our welding technique is used

Process for explosion-welding an aluminium-alloy cladding to a steel plate.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

25

26

FEATURE

PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

Alstom Coradia Liner Intercity train at Paris-Est station.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Trending and driving forces In 2017, NobelClad saw growing interest in its explosion-welding solution and was contacted by all the European rolling stock builders. The company believes that using hybrid aluminium-steel structures is becoming a significant trend in rail.

One of the drivers behind this innovation could be the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking.

Running from 2014-2020, this European public-private partnership is coordinating research activities with a view to driving innovation in the rail sector.

Given the pressing need to upgrade and maintain Europe’s railway networks, Shift2Rail has identified reducing axle

loads as one solution for extending the life of rail and track. Consequently, as train constructors explore ways and means of building ever-lighter trains, windows of opportunity (and engineering minds) are opening up to explosion-clad joints.

Efforts to reduce the weight of rolling stock are nothing new - manufacturers have been working on this challenge for years. What has changed is how they can achieve it.

Taking a step back from the here and now, it is worthwhile remembering that trains were originally built in steel. Many constructors then switched to all-aluminium build around the 1980s, followed by a gradual return to steel for certain components.

Launched in 2014, Shift2Rail is a public-private partnership platform for cooperation designed to drive innovation in the years to come. Its founding members are the European Union plus eight representatives of the rail industry. Other parties have since joined the initiative.

Shift2Rail activities are organised around the following five ‘Innovation Programmes’: »» Cost-efficient & reliable trains, including high-capacity & -speed trains; »» Advanced traffic management & control systems; »» Cost-efficient & reliable high-capacity infrastructure; »» IT solutions for attractive railway services; »» Technologies for sustainable & attractive European freight.

SOURCE: unife.org

for applications whereby the benefits justify the extra investment,” David commented. At the same time, while the explosion-welded part may cost more upfront, it allows simpler and smarter design and will enable savings over the service life of the train.

Here Mike Blakely, NobelClad’s Global Director of Business Development, picked up the thread. “I think a lack of awareness may give rise to the perception of explosion welding being an expensive alternative to riveting. But, once people understand the cost benefits to be gained, like faster production rates in the factory, lighter trains so less energy consumed when in service, they realise it is a viable solution over the long term.”

As is obvious from the name, explosion welding is still a form of welding. The process therefore has to conform with the stringent standards governing welded parts for rolling stock. NobelClad’s existing RailClad products are certified to EN 15085 ‘Welding of Railway Vehicles and Components (CWRVC) Class 1’ and EN 3834-2:2005 ‘Quality requirements for fusion welding of metallic materials’.

FEATURE Explosion welded clad.

“We can produce extremely solid steel structures today that are also extremely refined,” David Gauthier affirmed. “Now it’s possible to join dissimilar metals through explosion welding, constructors are seeing how they can design around the resulting hybrid structures to deliver benefits like high strength and resistance, and/or to declutter.”

“Rolling stock manufacturers are increasingly taking total life cycle and ownership costs into account because their clients are,” added Mike Blakely. “The drive to increase the efficiency of trains over their life cycles, for example. In terms of energy consumption and maintenance, is probably working in favour of explosion welding.”

NobelClad will be showcasing its hybrid transition joints at InnoTrans 2018. Members of Shift2Rail, will possibly be presenting their work for new hybrid (aluminium/steel) coach bodies at the same exhibition, a design which will include NobelClad joints.

Changing the rail engineering mindset While NobelClad is fully confident about the performance benefits of its transition joints for rail rolling stock, it admits that a bigger challenge is encouraging a behaviour shift among engineers “to get them to include these hybrid solutions in their designs, because, at the end of the day, we are still competing with 100 per cent aluminium and 100 per cent steel structures.”

If taken into consideration from the outset, explosion-welded structural transition joints allow for streamlined designs that shave off extra weight while maintaining critical strength and useful life requirements. They can also take on a wide range of shapes and sizes by sawing, water jet and machining, and be welded on both sides by any customer using conventional techniques.

“It’s probably true that, compared to others like aerospace, the rail industry likes to follow the traditional path when it comes to joining different materials and structures,” Mike Blakely admitted. “The mindset tends to be ‘if it works use it’, but not necessarily to go back to the drawing board for redesigning so that it works even better and more efficiently.

“We want to get the good creative engineers to become aware of the beneficial properties of our joints so they run with them during the design phase.”

Here Shift2Rail is providing a helping hand. Given its status as a collaborative project with all of Europe’s train builders on board, plus funding coming from the European Union, it has generated public attention. As a result, awareness of explosion welding in rail is growing.

“NobelClad has a great deal of experience on two fronts,” Mike Blakely summed up. “In one case, standard products ready to ship for which we can share the significant amounts of data collected over the years. In addition, we are fully committed to developing custom solutions and putting them through their paces, so as to qualify the solution as appropriate for the design.”

Alstom Coradia Polyvalent.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

27

28

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

Tipping t h e towards a balance STEVE DENNISS

digital fut ure

T

he application of digital technology onto the UK’s crowded rail network seems to be the logical answer to the pressing concerns of capacity, reliability and connectivity. More than this, it seems to be the only answer for an industry facing the existential threats of driverless cars, drones, remote working and online shopping.

With a core commuter base waiting to be seduced by market disrupters in the decidedly more proactive road sector, the time for the railways to commit to a digital future is now.

But a national sea change in our telecoms and signalling - for this is what the implementation of a digital railway boils down to - requires various parties to unite and align their objectives. It demands compromise and, ultimately, clear objectives to be set that will realise this decades-long vision. And the race is on to do so before the choice is taken out of industry’s hands - after all, 63 per cent of signals need to be replaced in the next 15 years.

So, if the industry doesn’t make this commitment now, it will be made for it, when existing architecture has to be renewed at a regional level. Is investing in more traffic lights really necessary, when the digital alternative could provide more reliability, lower costs, and that much-needed increase in capacity, and all without the need for expensive infrastructure investment?

This was the context within which WSP and the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) held an industry think tank in 2017. Bringing together all corners of the rail industry, they sought to find common ground, gauge appetite

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

for change and understand some of the blockages that have stilted progress in the eight years since European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) was introduced on the Cambrian Line.

Having been involved in this pilot, and as a current member of the Digital Railway programme team, it was exciting to be part of these discussions and find some consensus that will provide the impetus to make this vision a reality.

What is a digital railway?

A digital railway will enable the train operator to know the position, speed, load and even the faults of every train on the network instantly. Trains will run closer together, boosting capacity, they will run more smoothly, reducing power usage, and have the ability to work around blocked lines as they occur and schedule maintenance based on health data represent further compelling efficiencies.

This is not a ‘tomorrow’s world’ scenario.

Many metro systems already operate in this way, some with an on-board attendant, such as the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), and some operate with no on-board operator, including the recent Paris Metro line one and the Dubai Metro.

Between 1993 and 1996, the author was system safety manager on the DLR, a good example of how a strong concept can deliver the routes and ridership of a profitable system.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Carne, the industry is probably “hugely underestimating” the benefits of a digital railway.

All eyes will be on the Thameslink programme - where the late Paul Bates, a WSP colleague, implemented ETCS Level 2 in-cab signalling - to determine whether tight timetables can be achieved at busy stations using ETCS.

Who foots the bill?

Digital Railway will remove many of the light signals from around the network.

For the mainline railway, it will be the European Train Control System (ETCS) that provides the trains with movement authorities (the speed and stopping positions) to ensure they stop safely.

Wireless messages will replace the conventional traffic-light signals and provide the on-board equipment with authority to move. Drivers’ advisory and intelligent traffic management (TM) will use this information to control trains in a given area or line. Unlike the conventional railway, an integrated system approach between track and train will maximise the benefits.

Both Thameslink and Crossrail will use ETCS over parts of their networks when they come online next year.

However, given that these are the only new examples of this technology in the UK, it is hoped that the programme’s pragmatic approach of implementing various digital systems where there is likely to be immediate benefit to the passengers (as opposed to a national roll out), will encourage uptake.

Then there are the estimates that cite increased capacity of between 25 and 40 per cent, with Level 3, (or, even better, Hybrid Level 3), promising up to 25 per cent further capacity gains and greater flexibility in remodelling the layout and extending services.

While the constituents of a digital railway (including TM, ETCS, Connected Driver Advisory Systems (C-DAS), Automatic Train Operation (ATO), should enable operators to squeeze more benefits from the railway, reduce its operational cost and improve the customer experience, exactly how big these benefits will be is yet unknown. To quote Network Rail chief executive Mark

Delivering a digital railway that truly benefits taxpayers, who fund most of it, and the freight operators, who are keen to de-congest our busy road network, requires those who implement, operate and maintain the railway to align their objectives.

However, as the think tank evolved, it became clear that alignment is no simple matter. The partially privatised model under which the UK rail operates means there is little incentive for Network Rail, a regulated entity and owner of the programme, to improve the network to the material benefit of train operators. Instead, its focus is understandably set on maintaining the network, reducing operating costs and improving reliability.

Similarly, passenger train operating companies have a healthy obsession with providing services that meet timetables in accordance with the Public Performance Measure.

What’s in it for industry, and who benefits?

Unsurprisingly, understanding the benefits of digital implementation and how these could translate to TOCs, FOCs, Network Rail and the supply chain was a recurring theme in the think tank.

The general benefits are well known.

Certainly, some past studies - with the likes of DfT, Network Rail and RSSB show that a digital railway would be 40 per cent cheaper to operate and maintain than conventional rail. This is largely due to there being a reduction in trackside equipment, but also because fewer employees would be needed to operate it.

Thameslink will use ETCS Level 2 with an ATO overlay to achieve 24 trains an hour through the central core in each direction.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

29

30

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS It is therefore good to hear of Mark Carne’s market-led vision supported by the DfT of a digital programme being pulled along by TOCs, each eager to lead the digital space and deliver better performance and win more franchises.

But for progress to be made, each party will need to accept that they may not see a short-term return on their investment and, in some cases, that it might benefit another part of the industry entirely. For example, on non-electrified lines, a TM system, installed largely at the cost of the infrastructure owner (albeit with some on-board equipment to optimise the process), could benefit the operator by reducing fuel usage.

Network Rail could of course charge higher access fees for these services, but then the whole process gets messy.

There needs to be a better way of dealing with costs and benefits which cross these commercial boundaries. Early adopters will, therefore, need to look to the long term, up to 15 years after their initial investment is made. To ease the transition, incentives must be injected into the system, with alliances helping parties share the short-term burden, and outcome/output performance based contracts providing strong assurances.

While the Government can inject some of this cash, it is the private sector that really needs to take the lead. In keeping with the Hansford Report, TOCs and, more importantly, their owning groups and suppliers, must adopt private funding initiatives and shared riskreward partnerships between clients and suppliers to help us cross the current impasse.

A cultural shift within our industry would underpin these changes by promoting consensus and collaborative behaviours between clients, and suppliers. Equally, we mustn’t lose sight that at the heart of

ERTMS is being introduced across the entire Danish network, but not without its problems.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Traffic Management is being introduced to make sure Thameslink trains enter the central core in the correct sequence. the digital railway will be the people who design, build, operate and maintain it.

So, initiatives that bring people together, such as the University of Birmingham’s centre of excellence for the digital railway, are to be applauded and encouraged.

Why widespread adoption trumps a piecemeal approach So why has the industry failed to agree on an overall implementation plan in over 16 years, in particular one that combines train and track fitment? The think tank tended to agree that 25 to 40year visions, while providing a long-term commitment, prohibit take-up owing to the scale of the task and the size of the bill. The current approach of looking for incremental short-term wins is better.

In helping the programme to develop its strategic business plans for key routes, the overriding flavour is one of incremental improvement with known technology to minimise disruption. TM is high on the list of ‘nice-to-haves’, as it can operate with conventional signalling first and then with ETCS. But TM is still a minor subset of the digital vision - the real prize is actually ETCS. An incremental, route-based approach will no doubt encourage action and provide benefits, such as the 40 per cent energy saving promised with C-DAS. However, a patchwork quilt of systems would come with a more expensive maintenance bill and lower economies of scale, because there will be an array of expensive operational and maintenance regimes rather than a common one that can be trained for and shared. And it would require a larger pool of expertise, spare parts and interface systems to support and maintain different versions of train control, with the potential loss of any benefits of sharing data across systems.

Cyber security would also be easier to manage under a planned system.

Most individual, route-based projects will affect other routes, or the fleets that operate on them, and therefore need to be planned in a broader context and towards an ‘end state’. Enabling work and development at the programme level will be vital to realising the full benefits of a digital railway.

Lessons from beyond the UK From my personal experience, having helped implement ERTMS in the Middle East and Denmark, I am convinced that a long-term vision and commitment to an overall programme are essential. This commitment needs to be consistent; the recent lack of cooperation across the Gulf State governments, and the subsequent stalling of their joint railway plan for an interoperable railway in and around Abu Dhabi, attests to that.

In Denmark, EU funding and a political will to transform its ailing rail system kept its digital railway programme on track.

But, despite there being just one national train operator, even Denmark has recently encountered issues with funding and implementation.

Building long-term relationships with a small number of suppliers through outcome-based contracts, and uniting teams of international experts to design, develop and deliver the operational and technical systems, is a recipe that we should look to imitate.

Of course, UK railways is a far larger and more complex proposition, and features predominantly Victorian infrastructure.

With nearly half of Europe’s congested railways found here, now is the time for industry to work towards a digital future and, once again, lead the way for others to follow.

Steve Denniss is technical director at WSP. The IRSE report “Making a Success of the Digital Railway” is available for download on the IRSE website.

“Excellence in Engineering”

Lundy Projects Limited 195 Chestergate Stockport SK3 0BQ Tel: 0161 476 2996 Email: mail@lundy-projects.co.uk Website: www.lundy-projects.co.uk

32

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

PAUL DARLINGTON

Discussion on “Making a Success of the Digital Railway”

T

he recent White Paper “Making a Success of the Digital Railway”, published by the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) and the subject of an article by Steve Denniss elsewhere in this issue, was also the subject of a

very constructive public debate held in London recently.

The panel consisted of Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne, managing director of Digital Railway David Waboso, Rail Delivery Group (RDG) director of planning, engineering and operations Gary Cooper, and Anna Ince, chief executive of Resonate. The event included 100 guests and experts in railway signalling control and operations.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Francis How (below), chief executive IRSE, chaired the evening and opened the discussion by providing a brief background to the paper. Towards the end of 2016, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers were requested to support and communicate the importance of the Digital Rail programme. In response, the IRSE ran a series of workshops, with the support of WSP, and the final output is the IRSE White Paper “Making a Success of the Digital Railway”.

Public benefit Most of the issues with the implementation of the Digital Railway programme are not technical, but more to do with the non-technological ‘treacle’ through which the industry has to wade, and which causes difficulties in making progress. The paper has attempted to be fair to all the parties involved, but has also been brave and blunt in places. Where things have not gone well, it tells it as it is, and does not pull its punches or put a spin on the issue.

Francis gave a warning that railways must not get complacent and assume that the growth experienced since privatistion will continue. There are some indicators starting to appear that the future may be more challenging. Working patterns are starting to change and driverless cars are here. Strange as it may seem, he likes and welcomes the wake-up call, commenting that something is needed to force railways management to change, rather than carry on as it has always done.

Some of the messages in the paper are complemented by other work, such as the influential House of Commons Transport Select Committee, which has stated that digital technology could deliver “significant benefits” for the railway.

The programme to provide in-cab signalling for the main railway network was instigated in 2001, with digital technology first used for signalling decades earlier. In the subsequent 16 years, there is

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS little to show in the UK, compared to other industries and countries that have made major transformational changes during this time.

Francis and the IRSE, however, remain positive about the opportunities Digital Railway will provide and were heartened to hear that a contract had recently been placed by Network Rail for the fitment of ETCS (European Train Control System) to nearly 750 freight locomotives. The timescales may be long, but this is a major step forward as it confirms a commitment to fit ETCS on a national scale.

More but less Mark Carne said that he very much appreciated the white paper and that it was the best thing that had been written about the Digital Railway programme for some time. Britain’s railways have had spectacular growth over the last twenty years but are now severely congested, with 45 per cent of Europe’s most congested rail routes being in Britain. In the past, the answer has been to build more infrastructure, but that is not sustainable and the solution must be to use the infrastructure more efficiently. The digital railway programme is clearly a key solution to the problem of running more trains, more reliably and at less cost than traditional signalling.

Paul Darlington talks with David Waboso.

He went on to say that it’s not just about capacity. Within the next 15 years, 63 per cent of Britain’s signalling assets will require replacement. A huge proportion of signalling has come to the end of its life.

This is the time for the industry to seize the opportunity to change for something better.

Mark confirmed that the political will to support the Digital Railway programme is higher than it is has ever been. “We have a chancellor who recently put £450 million on the table, and the chief secretary of state for the treasury, together with politicians at all levels, want to get behind this programme.”

But there are some impediments to the programme, which the paper has highlighted. There may well be a

transformation in transport over the next 20 years, with the introduction of autonomous cars which could be more flexible and efficient than rail in its current form. The railways must recognise this threat.

One of the items in the paper with which Mark totally agrees, and that he can’t emphasise enough, is the need for the industry to come together as a whole, with an aligned sense of purpose to support the Digital Railway programme. “We have to work together as a group of engineers and to speak with passion about this transformation,” he stated. “We have to work with our colleagues at the Department for Transport to make the franchise system provide the right incentives for everyone to get behind the programme”.

We want

You need

to power our

from RELEC

a suite of DC DC converters

Mornsun DC DC converterS

monitoring systems

+ EN50155/EN50121/RIA12 test reports 6 to 150W outputs Next day samples 24V/52V/72V/110V inputs Reinforced isolation Best in class pricing <6 week delivery schedules High Reliability (>1000k hrs)

... and that’s just the beginning!

01929 555800 sales@relec.co.uk relec.co.uk

stan dard is j ust th e begin n in g

The specialist in power conversion and displays

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

33

34

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Unlike when the industry successfully delivered the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), there is no mandated deadline, so the industry itself needs to create the same imperative for change.

Disrupters to rail Anna Ince of Resonate commended the IRSE for the quality of the report and for nailing some of the issues the industry must address. She too agrees with the final paragraph; that the industry needs to come together to make things happen far better and more quickly. However, she warned that rail is ignoring the fact that technology is strengthening the competitive edge of other transport modes, and doesn’t focus enough on customers as other sectors do.

“We don’t always put customers first in our decisions and, to succeed, customers have to be looked after far better than they currently are,” she said.

Even if the threat from other transport modes is ignored, there are signs that the demand for rail may be turning. Department for Transport figures show a 9.6 per cent drop in season ticket sales between July and September last year, and ORR figures for the period show the lowest demand for rail journeys since 2011, with 15 million fewer journeys.

Anna compared the situation to what happened with Royal Mail. It faced disrupters which cherry-picked its most lucrative customers and not the expensive national door-to-door service. Transport disrupters may do a similar thing. They won’t do the difficult and expensive things that rail currently does, but will go for the cream.

She added that railways need to use technology to run trains closer together

and more efficiently through the network, with better availability and at less cost. “We have to find a way of adopting technology from other industries more easily with more collaborative working and contractual relationships that work for everyone.”

But, if rail grasps the opportunities of digital rail, the prize is huge. It’s not too late and rail is not too far behind the rest of the world. Other railways face similar challenges, with increased urbanisation and the same capacity and performance issues. The UK has a complex, highly utilised railway. So, if rail can solve the problems of productivity and performance using UK expertise, it will have globally attractive systems, techniques, business processes and engineering skills to export worldwide.

Quality thinking Gary Cooper of the Rail Delivery Group welcomed the partnership aspects of the paper and commented on the quality of the thinking that had clearly gone into it. His view was that the paper’s recommendations would, quite simply, result in a better railway for customers, railway staff and the taxpayer.

It will provide a step change in efficiency, capacity and provide a better railway for the UK. The supply chain will have confidence and a programme of work so that it can invest in people and systems to build the capability to deliver digital systems both in the UK and worldwide.

However, there has been too much focus on the technology rather than focusing on removing the blockers and providing what customers require. The market-led but collaborative approach recommended by the paper is exactly what is required to stimulate the supply chain.

L-R Gary Cooper, Francis Howe, Mark Carne, David Waboso, Anna Ince.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Progress to date David Waboso’s first message was that this year should see Thameslink and Crossrail in-cab signalling, along with traffic management schemes, take the Digital Railway programme a major step forward, so it is vital that everyone gets behind these schemes as they have to be successful. If they do not deliver it will be very difficult to gain further support for the programme.

His second point was that Network Rail has re-engaged with the supply chain and that this will be transformational, opening the door for a totally different and improved relationship to get things moving in a collaborative, cooperative way. Thirdly, he said that there was huge support for the programme from government and external parties, and that the industry just needs to get on with it and deliver.

David went on to say that, while things have moved on, the basics are the same and it's not cutting-edge technology that Digital Railway is trying to do for the first time. “This is largely 40-year-old technology we are talking about; the Victoria line automatic train operation system was in use by 1967.

Why on earth are we still installing traffic lights to control main line trains?”

He considered that there was scope for more efficient ways of working, with currently too much ‘man marking’, duplication and risk contingency. When analysing the cost of schemes, the suppliers’ cost base and ‘kit cost’ is only part of the issue, and a huge portion of time and effort is spent on ‘development’ and process within the industry. Quite simply, the railway doesn’t work efficiently enough as a team.

Projects have several programme offices, huge risk budgets, separate assurance

36

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS teams, and too much rework. Other industry sectors have learned that they work best when they operate as one team, with the best man for the job left to get on with things.

The emerging plan Not all of the Digital Railway plan is funded, but a significant proportion is. Control Period 6 is likely to feature the provision of large Traffic Management (TM) and Connected Driver Advisory Systems (C-DAS). Having stored data and a timetable pre-loaded at the start of each journey, the systems will connect in real time to the railway and provide information based on what is actually happening.

They will calculate the ideal speed of the train to help ensure it travels smoothly through the network and arrives on time, together with helping to reduce the impact on the environment by lowering energy consumption.

This will encompass the majority of England and Wales and will provide a ‘quick win’ as 70 per cent of delays are reactionary delays.

When there is a train or track circuit failure, for example, it is the ripple effect through the system that is the main cause of delay, because the railway is very congested. An embarrassingly small amount of trains work to timetable; no other industry would tolerate such poor performance. However, TM, and C-DAS can transform this situation and, as they are the relatively less intrusive parts of the Digital Railway programme, and the payback on the investment is shorter, the industry needs to get on with it.

CP6 will also see a significant amount of ETCS deployment, which works best when train fitment and signalling renewal is synchronised.

The business case for throwing away a signalling system that is not life expired just doesn’t work, and retrofitting trains has to be avoided wherever possible.

So, the current programme is: »» East Coast, as it has a lot of digital-ready trains and is due for resignalling; »» Crewe resignalling, with its interface to HS2 and ATO trains; »» Transpennine, with its twisting railway causing signal sighting problems, so ETCS makes sense; »» Wessex, which has a big resignalling programme and new trains planned.

It is wrong to put a blanket number on the capacity improvement Digital Railway can deliver, as has been done by some commentators in the past, because each line has a different mix of trains, different characteristics, a different number of stations, different line-speed profiles and different terminal stations. But David believes that, by the end of CP6, a significant amount of passenger journeys (in the order of 70-75 per cent) could be operated by ETCS. Network Rail has worked closely with DfT, so railway franchises will now include requirements for driver training, and ETCS cab fitment, together with C-DAS and TM. Within Network Rail, no signalling scheme will be permitted to go ahead unless it fits within the Digital Railway programme and makes sense.

Telecommunications will be the glue that binds the Digital Railway together and is so hugely important. Investment in telecoms will be required to ensure capacity is available, as every GSM-R failure for ETCS will be like a track circuit failure, so high availability is essential.

Supply chain Network Rail is planning to spend £5 billion in CP6 on signalling, and David was very keen to make the point that a very different way of working with suppliers is required. The traditional procurement process can stifle the innovation and collaboration required to make the necessary transformational changes required, so a more dynamic partnership approach is required.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

There needs to be a supplier’s ‘whole of life’ relationship for Digital Railway. Railway infrastructure is the only industry where someone builds something and then walks away, that’s got to change. Train operators and other industries have shown they can do this in the way they buy equipment, with a design, build and maintain relationship, and the Digital Railway programme must do the same.

Suppliers will have to take far greater responsibility and risk in what they provide. If it breaks, they have to step in and fix things - if it doesn’t break, they get rewarded.

In many cases, it’s the civil engineering, with massive foundations and deep piling for LED signals (which last 60 years so why do we provide ladders?), that drives up the cost for signalling schemes. So, things have to be done differently, with more automation of design and installation as well as more offsite testing. This will dramatically reduce the need for access to the already congested 24/7 railway and drive down costs.

As examples, David asked whether axle counters could be installed by robotics, to make installation quicker and cheaper. And why are there manual processes for design, that introduce errors that require rework?

Automated design and self-assurance and offsite testing will drastically reduce the amount of rework and cost, as well as the need to shut the railway for resignalling schemes as often as at present.

Customers expect continuity of service for everything else they buy, and railways need to adopt the attitudes, processes and methods used in other industries.

Support from DfT Jessica Matthew, deputy director rail digital services from Department for Transport, confirmed that all ministerial heads are in support of the Digital Railway programme, that a route-based approach based on resignalling need and train fitment is the government’s way forward, and that the first schemes named in the industrial strategy must deliver. The industry must do all it can to support these schemes.

The range of questions and discussions during the evening clearly demonstrated that the event and the white paper had inspired and enthused the attendees. Yes, there are many challenges ahead but, if the railway acts as one and gets on with the Digital Railway programme as recommended by the IRSE, the benefits are many.

Two decades of signalling excellence

Find out more at kier.co.uk/rail

38

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

DAVID BICKELL

Improving performance and capacity on the railway.

Conventional signalling and the European Train Control System (ETCS)

R

eaders of Rail Engineer are well acquainted with the huge construction projects around the country, aiming to increase capacity by building additional platforms and/or providing grade separated junctions. Examples include Norton Bridge, Heathrow Airport junctions, London Bridge, Reading, and Peterborough.

These schemes are extremely costly. They involve massive and very visible civil engineering works that create a significantly enlarged footprint of the station or junction, accompanied by substantial, mostly behind-the-scenes, alterations to the signalling and telecommunications (S&T) infrastructure, not forgetting the extensive operational changes that Network Rail and the TOCs have to plan for and implement.

With project costs coming under intense scrutiny, the Digital Railway is looking at options to deliver significant increases in performance and capacity as an alternative to the need for extensive remodelling works, which to a certain extent, are dictated by the design requirements of colour light signalling, as this article describes.

Limitations of multiple aspect signalling

Fig 1: Braking distance three-aspect signalling.

Fig 2: Braking distance four-aspect signalling.

Colour light signalling began to be installed on main line railways from the 1920s, providing train drivers with vastly improved signal sighting compared with semaphore signals, and facilitating the introduction of centralised signalling control centres.

However, colour light signals, in addition to indicating what we now call ‘movement authority’ (MA), also provide information to drivers as to the location at which braking should commence in

order not to exceed the limit of the current MA. This is achieved by a red signal being preceded by a yellow caution aspect in three-aspect areas, or a double yellow followed by a single yellow in four-aspect areas.

It follows that the first caution signal must be positioned at least at braking distance from the signal displaying red. Distance ‘a’ (three-aspect signalling) and ‘x+y’ (four-aspect signalling) must be a minimum of braking distance. In four-aspect areas, some flexibility in signal positioning is permitted within the stipulation that the distance between the single yellow aspect and the red aspect (‘y’) shall be no less than one-third of the actual signalling braking distance between the double yellow aspect and the red aspect (x+y).

To get an appreciation for the signal spacing distances involved, on a level gradient, the braking distance for a line speed of 125 mph is 2,054 metres.

The full requirements are detailed in Railway Group Standard GK/RT0075 and it is incumbent upon the signal design engineer to ensure that the position of lineside signals shall be compatible with the braking performance of rolling stock so that trains moving at the permissible speed can stop within the actual signalling braking distance.

Put simply, when creating a signalling scheme plan, firstly signals are positioned to protect junctions, and control movements starting from platforms and sidings. The preceding signals must be positioned to provide the necessary braking distance. It is these significant distances involved that may impact upon performance and capacity, as will be outlined in a moment.

European Train Control System (ETCS) ETCS is not a complete signalling system in its own right but provides an interface between signalling trackside infrastructure and individual trains. The Driver Machine Interface (DMI) in the driving cab displays the distance for which the train is authorised to travel, and the maximum speed allowed. If the onboard computer predicts that these values are likely to be exceeded, the system intervenes to safeguard operation of the train.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS At ETCS Level 2, the onboard equipment transmits and receives data from the signalling centre via the GSM-R radio network and the Radio Block Control. Balises in the four-foot communicate with the train to provide position references.

All other conventional signalling equipment is provided, including train detection, point operating machines, interlocking, and signaller interface.

Lineside signals may or may not be provided, but retaining them allows trains to run on the route whether or not they are fitted with ETCS. Not providing lineside signals, as on the Cambrian lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early deployment scheme, means that only trains with a healthy ETCS may operate on the line.

The important difference, compared with conventional multiple-aspect signalling, is that braking distances are continuously re-calculated by the ETCS onboard computer in accordance with the MA received from the interlocking, and geographic data such as speed limits. To achieve an accurate stopping position, the driver will look out of the cab window and observe the physical location of the end of MA. This is achieved by the provision of either conventional colour light signals (if fitted) and/or non-illuminated, reflectorised Block Markers.

The positioning of Block Markers, unlike colour light signals, is not constrained by braking distance and, in conjunction with extra train detection sections, additional Block Markers may be provided to allow trains to close-up, thereby increasing capacity.

MA is continuously updated on the DMI, allowing the driver to accelerate immediately when conditions ahead improve, rather than having to wait for the next signal to come into view.

Closing up on the train ahead The example in Fig 3 shows a conventionally signalled converging junction. Two trains, 1P35 and 1K23, approach the junction at about the same time, and 1P35 is allowed to proceed, forcing 1K23 to come to a stand at signal 514, which is displaying a red aspect. It has to remain at a stand until the rear of 1P35 clears the overlap of signal 508, by which time 1P35 is running at line speed and over 1.5 miles from 1K23, which is starting from rest with an ever increasing distance from 1P35 ahead.

The overlap is a safety over-run, typically 180 metres, to provide a margin of protection against the driver slightly misjudging the braking, or the trainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brakes not operating to full efficiency.

Train 1K23 moves off with a single yellow aspect at 514, and the driver cannot accelerate up to line speed as he has to anticipate the possibility that the next signal is at red. For the next mile or so the train proceeds at a significantly lower speed than permitted since the driver doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t receive any movement authority update until the next signal, 508, comes into view, which will depend upon curvature and general visibility of the line ahead.

1P35 is making good progress and is now several signal sections ahead. When 508 comes into view it is displaying green, authorising the driver of 1K23 to accelerate to line speed, though by now the significant gap with 1P35 is a considerable waste of capacity.

A similar problem arises when a train catches up with the train in front, which may be doing a station stop, or the route has not been set at a junction ahead. A train running at line speed thus encounters a restrictive aspect requiring a brake application to be made. Passing a single yellow, the speed of the train will be reducing to a level substantially lower than line speed in anticipation of a red signal ahead, thus causing a loss of time and capacity. Once again, the driver cannot accelerate until the next signal becomes visible, although the latter may have cleared up in the meantime.

Fig 3: Converging Junction.

Fig 4:ETCS permits closing up.

ETCS facilitates closing up For the benefit of ETCS operated trains, additional block sections may be installed, as in Fig 4, permitting 1K23 to move forward from 514 to close-up on 1P35, maintaining a much closer but safe separation, thereby improving throughput.

This philosophy of providing additional block sections has been adopted throughout the Thameslink core route. A train approaching 510 or 514 will be detected by the signalling system as operating in ETCS-mode or not. A train not fitted or operating in ETCS mode will not be able to take advantage of the close-up facility, as the system will require the entire block sections clear, up to and including the overlap of 508, before 510 or 514 will display a proceed aspect.

A train approaching 510 or 514 with ETCS live will see a single yellow if the route is set up to the first marker board.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

39

40

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Green banner signal Having the earliest possible view of the next signal considerably helps drivers to attain optimal speed. In certain situations, where the approach visibility of a stop signal is compromised and does not comply with signalling standards, a banner repeater signal may be provided on the approach to the signal to facilitate earlier advice to the driver of the state of the signal.

Traditionally, banner repeater signals simply replicate the signal ‘on’ or ‘off’ condition but, in the last few years, LED technology has enabled the enhancement of a green aspect to a banner repeater signal. This is intended to encourage drivers to ‘open up’ before the actual signal comes into view, particularly when the previous signal passed was showing an aspect other than green.

Diverging junctions

Fig 5: Through station, shared overlap.

Fig 6: Through station, plain-line overlap.

Signalling principles were reviewed in the 1970s, prior to the introduction of high-speed trains (HSTs). At this time, flashing yellow aspects were introduced to facilitate drivers receiving advance warning when a train is signalled through a fast diverging junction, enabling the driver to adjust the speed of the train in order to match, but not to exceed, the turnout speed.

However slow-speed turnouts continue to use the time-honoured approach release from red of the junction signal, with the inevitable slow crawl approach due to the sighting and driving technique issues already described.

ETCS obviates the need for flashing yellows and approach controls on junction signals, since the ETCS knows the route set and turnout speed, calculating the braking curve and advising the driver accordingly via the DMI display. For trains on which ETCS is operating, the ability of approaching signals to display flashing aspects, or be approach released from red or yellow, is not necessary, and will be disabled within the signalling system for the passage of each ETCS train. Only standard aspectsequences will be displayed to these trains. Route or junction indicators will continue to operate.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Variable driving styles TOC professional driving policies emphasise techniques for the avoidance of SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger) and examples taken from the ‘East Coast Professional Driving Policy’ booklet of 2013 includes the following requirements: “Reduce train speed gradually and continuously when approaching a red signal, planning to stop well before the signal.”

“If a signal clears from a red to a cautionary aspect as the train approaches it, remind yourself of the cautionary aspect using risk-triggered commentary. Also, limit acceleration and do not exceed 30 mph.”

“Treat approaching a red signal in the platform the same way as approaching any other stop signal.”

Such well meaning procedures are designed to reduce the SPAD risk but, ultimately, are cautious to the extent that individual driving styles may impact upon performance and have a knock-on effect upon the service.

Although the ETCS DMI provides the driver with a visual display of maximum permitted speed and target speed, controlling the actual speed is still in the hands of the driver. Consistent driving with actual braking that closely aligns with the calculated curve will be achieved by the provision of Automatic Train Operation. The Thameslink core is the first application on Network Rail of ATO and preparation, including driver training, is under way in readiness for the Class 700 fleet to commence ATO operation later this year.

The problem of through stations Fig 5 shows a typical layout where points are in the overlap of the starting signals. The first train arrives in Platform 15 with the forward route set for its departure onwards from 389 to 405.

Unfortunately, this locks the overlap points 627 normal, and the route cannot be set for a following train to approach 387. This subsequent train has to wait at 349 (which may be several hundred metres outside the station) until the first train has departed and cleared the overlap of 389.

As an alternative, Fig 6 shows a solution whereby the platform starting signals have their own, separate plain-line overlaps. Thus with a train in Platform 15 and route set from 389, the signaller can set the route for the following train from 349 to 387 so that this train can arrive whilst the first train is completing station duties. The next train can then be signalled into Platform 15 with the route set from 387 to 405, and so on, saving valuable minutes by obviating standing out at 349.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

EY EY DS ER DS ER ON ND ON ND RM E-U RM E-U BE DIV BE DIV

However, this option requires two platforms and a significantly longer station footprint to allow for the provision of the plain line overlaps, which will be costly and not always physically possible if the station is built within the constraints of a TRACK LAYOUT AT JULY 2017 TOsolution CANNON STdoes provide immediate viaduct. This LONDON capacity improvement for all trains and isBRIDGE how the TRACK LAYOUT AT JULY 2017 TO BLACKFRIARS TO CANNON ST HIGH LEVEL TO GREENWICH KENT NEW CROSS extensively remodelled layouts at Reading and LINES 1 LONDON BRIDGE DS 1 TO BLACKFRIARS London Bridge have been configured.

HIGH LEVEL TO GREENWICH KENT NEW CROSS US 2 LINES 31 The ETCS solution in Fig 7 avoids the2 costly resource implications. The affordability is 3 DS 1 provision of another platform by the provision of questionable, and the many additional potential Fig 7: Through station, DF 4 US 2 4 5 2 3 5 UF 3 additional block sections, allowing a following train equipment failure points could compromise ETCSTEMP solution.

SLEW 6 DF 4 to close up on the approach to the platform as the TEMP of the ERTMS Level 2 operation.

6 5 7 4 SLEW reliability 7 5 TEMP UF SLEW previous train departs. This solution would increase TEMP ETCS TO CHARING CROSS 8 Level 3 differs from Level 2 by obviating 6 8 7 9 6 SUSSEX 9 7 capacity without the need for expensive civil and SLEW the provision of fixed blocks using trackside LINES TO CHARING CROSS DS 10 8 track engineering works, but may not be equipment.

Safe separation of trains is achieved 8 10 9the right SUSSEX DF 11 9 LINES solution if a second platform is needed for the by fixed virtual blocks based on train position UF DS 10 12 layover of terminatingLONDON trains. BRIDGE 1110 information reported by the train, or full moving US DF 11 LOW LEVEL UF Every ETCS fitted train will benefit from this block with dynamic handling of reported train NEW CROSS 13 12 14 11 US GATE BRIDGE in capacity will SOUTH option, but the overallLONDON improvement position information. Level 3 requires each train LOW LEVEL BERMONDSEY NEW CROSS 15 13 14 incrementally increase as more trains are fitted with to have a Train Integrity Monitor (TIM) in order to GATE SOUTH ETCS. report that the train is complete (with no carriages BERMONDSEY 15 A comparison between the traditional signalling or wagons left behind). and ETCS solution can be observed in the revised Clearly, Level 3 is the way forward, delivering TRACK LAYOUT AFTER AUGUST 2017 BLOCKADE TO CANNON ST layout at London Bridge High Level, where the better capacity, reducing costs and increasing LONDON and BRIDGE TRACK LAYOUT AFTER AUGUST 2017 BLOCKADE Canon Street lines have three platforms the reliability. Various Level 3 options are currently TO BLACKFRIARS TO CANNON ST TO GREENWICH HIGH LEVEL KENT NEW CROSS LINES Charing Cross lines have four platforms, 1allowing in development, including the possibility of LONDON BRIDGE 1 DS TO BLACKFRIARS TO GREENWICH HIGH KENT NEW CROSS trains to alternate between platforms toLEVEL increase overlaying onto legacy signalling systems with 2 US LINES 2 31 the throughput of trains, whereas the Thameslink train detection, thereby providing a fall-back in 3 1 DS 4 DF 2 US route adopts the ETCS solution and utilises only the event of the failure of the onboard ETCS or 4 3 5 2 UF two platforms (4 and 5) and relies on the closingloss of53 train integrity. Provision could also be made 6 4 DF 6 5 7 4 up flexibility of ETCS, provided by additional train to operate trains not fitted with ETCS if lineside 7 5 UF TO CHARINGsections.

CROSS detection signals 8 are retained.

6 8 7 9 6 SUSSEX 9 3, including ‘Hybrid Level 3’, which utilises 7 LINES Level TO CHARING CROSS DS 10 8 8 10 9 existing train detection, was described more fully ETCS Level 3 SUSSEX DF 11 9 LINES in issue Whilst the ETCS Level 2 solution, with additional UF DS 10 151 (May 2017). There are various Level 3 1110 12 US DF 11 at different stages of development. Hybrid options hard-wired block sections, may facilitate the LONDON BRIDGE LOW LEVEL UF Level 3 is the most advanced and is seen as the desired increase in line capacity, it contravenes NEW CROSS 13 12 14 11 US GATE BRIDGE SOUTH simple and low-risk solution, given the anticipated the desirability for theLONDON ETCS project to reduce LOW LEVEL BERMONDSEY NEW CROSS 1514 13 smooth migration path from existing trackside the amount of trackside signalling infrastructure.

GATE SOUTH BERMONDSEY signalling systems and trains.

Level 2 additional block sections require the 15 A demonstration of Hybid Level 3 is expected to costly purchase and installation of trackside trainThe revised track layout be up and running in the coming months. FINAL TRACK detection equipment, with ongoing maintenance atLAYOUT LondonJANUARY Bridge. 2018 EY EY DS ER DS ER ON ND ON ND RM E-U RM E-U BE DIV BE DIV

TO CANNON ST

FINAL TRACK LAYOUT JANUARY 2018 TO GREENWICH

LONDON BRIDGE HIGH LEVEL

TO BLACKFRIARS TO CANNON ST

1

LONDON BRIDGE HIGH LEVEL

TO BLACKFRIARS

2 31

4 2

LONDON BRIDGE LOW LEVEL LONDON BRIDGE LOW LEVEL

UF

SR

UF

8 6

10

SUSSEX LINES DS SUSSEX DF LINES UF DS

11

US DF

9 7 10 8 11 9

1110 12

UF

13 11 14 12

US

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

1514 13

NEW CROSS GATE NEW CROSS GATE

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

15

NEW CROSS

DF

7 5

8 10 9

NEW CROSS

DF US SR

6 4

8 7 9 6

KENT LINES DS KENT US LINES DS

5 3

6 5 7 4

TO CHARING CROSS

TO GREENWICH

2 3 1

4 3 5 2

TO CHARING CROSS

1

DS DOWN SLOW

DF DOWN FAST

US UP SLOW

UF UP FAST

SR SOUTHWARK REVERSIBLE

SOUTHEASTERN

SOUTHERN

THAMESLINK

ANCILLARY LINES

WORKSITE

DS DOWN SLOW

DF DOWN FAST

US UP SLOW

UF UP FAST

SR SOUTHWARK REVERSIBLE

SOUTHEASTERN

SOUTHERN

THAMESLINK

ANCILLARY LINES

WORKSITE

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

41

42

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

An International Metro Review

CLIVE KESSELL

T

he latest Aspect conference of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) was held in Singapore, and a report appeared in last month’s Rail Engineer. However, due to its location, the first time that Aspect has been held outside the UK, it was inevitable that much of the proceedings would be taken up with Metro technology and operations.

Today, most large cities have a metro system, but the types and variety of systems in terms of sophistication, capacity, safety provision and engineering are almost bewildering. Few, if any, are identical, standardisation being virtually non-existent.

Proprietary systems from many different suppliers dominate the market but, in order to keep abreast of the latest technology, these same systems are updated on a regular basis such that lines equipped with one technology may be different to another technology inside the same metro network.

This has both advantages and drawbacks. It is good that the latest technology is deployed, so as to maximise operational requirements, but the interworking of rolling stock between lines, spares holdings and staff familiarity can be a real problem.

Many systems exist under the CBTC (Communications Based Train Control) banner but, even here, the means of achieving the vital transmission link can vary: coded track circuits, track loops and radio.

Several of the papers presented at the conference explored the different metro engineering practices and operation. Whilst this gave an opportunity to ‘showcase’ the systems in particular cities or countries, it did highlight the variety of systems deployed and the challenge when planning new investment.

Singapore SMRT. Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Singapore itself has a superb metro system, so commented Chua Chong Kheng, the deputy chief executive of the LTA (Land Transport Authority). The first line opened in 2003 with many more since and a further four extensions being built.

The lines have a mixture of different proprietary CBTC systems, with much of the equipment being duplicated. Single points of failures do, however, occur. The ongoing objective is to have everything duplicated, including point machines. Track circuits provide secondary train detection should the radiobased primary systems fail. Problem areas are radio spectrum availability and the lack of interoperability and interchangeability between the different systems.

These issues were to be a common theme at Aspect.

Metro trends and challenges Whilst metro technology has advanced massively in the last two decades, the decision-making process for new or upgraded provision has become ever more complex, with an increasing number of factors needing to be considered, according to Andrew Love from SNC-Lavelin. Many are obvious:

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS »» Frequency of service; »» Complexity of service patterns; »» Criticality of service (‘must run’ or ‘good to run’); »» Timetable dependability; »» Number of passengers and impact of station dwell time; »» Type of signalling and sensitivity to response time; »» Level of automation and whether it is a requirement or a solution; »» Variety of rolling stock, often with different performances; »» Physical environment - tunnels, fire safety, space and access, ventilation; »» Need or otherwise for platform edge doors (PEDs); »» Interfaces to other lines.

Other new challenges are also emerging with the increasing trend to mix metro and main line operation in city suburban areas. Interoperability then becomes the buzzword, with the overall goal being to provide ‘safe and uninterrupted movement of trains to achieve the desired levels of performance’. Easily said, but not so easy to achieve when the mindsets of metro and main line engineers can be very different. Increasing automation in both camps should be leading to a convergence of technologies, but this is a long way from becoming a reality.

As indicated, metro signalling and control tends to be based on proprietary technology, developed by different supply companies with small metros just buying ‘off the shelf’ and only larger metro networks being able to influence design changes to achieve an element of customisation. Such systems yield a capacity of between 12 and 36tph (trains per hour), where every second counts and a timetable becomes almost irrelevant.

If service-affecting problems occur, degraded mode operation can be critical, often by introducing speed control to bring trains closer together while avoiding the risk of stopping trains in tunnels for long periods

Singapore SMRT.

S Stock train on London's Metropolitan line.

Main line operations have evolved from historic national principles with generic technologies. However, supplier competition has led to the software associated with modern electronic interlockings being essentially secret, ATP systems becoming largely proprietary (except ETCS) and control systems always having subtle differences. Capacity is around 18tph with clock-face timetables and a large variety of rolling stock to cover both passenger and freight needs.

Prevention of SPADs (signals passed at danger) is still to the forefront.

If metro and main line rail systems are to be integrated in urban and suburban areas, then converging the technologies will need to happen. This has to be industry led, since the technical expertise lies there.

Most of the big supply companies have both metro and main line knowledge, but often in separate divisions. Merging the two would be a useful first step and should lead to products having the same vital hardware, with large portions of code being re-used. Software dominance over hardware is changing the way the market works, but being mindful of disruptive technologies will be important.

Instances of metro type main lines are there to be seen - London’s Thameslink, Gautrain in South Africa, even some high-speed lines, whilst mainlinetype metros are also appearing - the London Underground Metropolitan line and Crossrail. Adapting the available technology to suit both needs currently requires innovative one-off solutions, often with multiple installations on the train.

Getting an integrated solution will not be easy, but industry alliances must surely recognise the business advantages that this would bring.

Metros worldwide In a conference of this type, the opportunity is always there for speakers to describe and promote their own country or city systems. Aspect was no exception.

London - the 4LM modernisation taking place on the Metropolitan, District, Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines.

Already well documented and described within Rail Engineer articles, the project is, however, a challenge in terms of migration from existing technology, let alone integrating the new technology into other lines with different signalling systems.

Singapore - the system has two operators (SMRT and SBS) and now has to plan for replacement of track, power and signalling as lines are modernised, including provision for an increase in ridership of around 50 per cent by 2030.

Digital systems are an obvious choice, but these also need to embrace diagnostics and maintenance using mobile devices, virtual and augmented reality (on tablets) for training, automatic vehicle inspection and depot facilities management.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

43

44

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

Gautrain South Aftica.

A 50 per cent increase in the workforce is anticipated, with a rail academy already set up to facilitate the required training with supply companies taking advantage of this facility.

A big challenge will be replacing the signalling system without stopping traffic. The Thales SelTrac system has been selected, with much of the new infrastructure installed and tested. New MMIs (man-machine interfaces) are being built into the existing control consoles.

Train equipment is being duplicated, but at the expense of removing two passenger seats to house the kit.

Hong Kong - systems for new lines and replacement on existing lines foresee driverless operation (DTO) as the goal (although still retaining an on board passenger support assistant) with a twominute headway to achieve 99.9 per cent reliability.

Features include station stopping accuracy of ±350mm with automatic inch-forward or backward, automatic fare collection with self service points at stations, an open cab with an emergency driving console, a remote restricted speed command at 15kph for a maximum distance of 200 metres if communication is lost, continuous CCTV

coverage of carriages each with four cameras, automatic ‘wake up’ and ‘sleep’ commands at depots and automatic turnback short of terminus if line closures have to happen. Also planned is the use of LTE radio communication in 4G, maybe with special facilities for rail usage.

South Africa - the 80km Gautrain from Johannesburg to Pretoria, opened in 2010, is now planning extensions and two further lines. Deciding on the right technology for these is proving difficult, according to Portia Xaba, as it has to be linked to the expected growth in traffic as well as trying to predict the technology evolution.

Gautrain is a metro-like main line, currently equipped with conventional signalling plus ATP. Choosing between CBTC or ERTMS systems is one dilemma, as is the choice of radio bearer - GSM-R, Tetra, LTE, Wi-Fi or satellite. Radio bandwidth allocation is also a concern.

Toronto - a new 10km cross city link known as Eglinton Crosstown Rapid Transit required some novel thinking, according to Colin Williams from SNC-Lavelin. Being half underground and half street running meant providing two signalling systems, with trains needing a very low brake rate to handle the extremes of Canadian weather.

The underground sections have ATO with

Britomart station, Auckland, NZ. Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

ATP, but street level operation requires manual driving and linkage to the road traffic lights at crossroads.

No priority is given to the trains, as traffic chaos would result, but, to maximise throughput, east- and westbound trains are timetabled to pass each other at stations and road intersections. A maximum capacity of 20tph is achievable, but this concept of mix and match still has its problems.

Malaysia - lessons learned from the Klang Valley MRT SBK line have emphasised the need to have muchimproved systems for integration planning and interface management for future lines.

Signalling elements including ATP, ATO and ATS (Automatic Train Supervision) need linking to many other rail systems, such as civil infrastructure and stations, using computers and telecoms. Unless a proven interface process is available, future projects are at risk.

12 elements of integration are identified, critical ones being fare management, screen doors and depot access. From there comes the validation of the project using a mechanism known as DOORS (Dynamic Object Orientated Requirements System) that will lead to gap analysis and change control emergence Auckland - the re-emergence of rail as an important transport means New Zealand’s largest city has enabled some novel thinking for asset management in the $3.5 billion City Rail Link project.

Using the typical asset life cycle flow of Business Case Create Operate and Maintain Dispose, building a database of evidence using BIM techniques (perhaps re-named Better Information Management) is enabling 3D views to be created of the entire system, with all design packages put into a single environment. Condition monitoring sensors feed into the BIM data to show the precise asset situation.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Other metro considerations Other dilemmas are facing metro operators, according to Robert Cooke from the Singapore LTA. Defining what is wanted from a CBTC railway can prove difficult. Getting the balance right between performance and prescription without stifling innovation but limiting risk is a challenge.

Another difficult issue is whether or not to go for an unmanned railway (UTO = Unattended Train Operation) as this has social, safety and technology factors to consider. Some metros have already used UTO in major cities (Paris has two such lines), so the problems are not insurmountable. Dwell times at stations have to be carefully assessed, as door closure is automatic regardless of platform conditions. Typical would be 28 seconds at non-interchange stations, 45 seconds at interchanges and 60 seconds at terminal or turn-back stations. Terminal station design is critical to ensure efficient reversing.

Platform edge (screen) doors (PEDs), and the timing of their operation, can delay passenger movement so these must be integrated into the signalling contract to ensure system ‘ownership’.

Other UTO requirements include mandatory CCTV coverage of every carriage with live viewing, together with loudspeaker announcements if an alarm incident occurs. Also needed will be automatic train ‘wake up and sleep’ commands, a ‘creep’ command to get the train to the next station if the ATO fails, a passenger-initiated emergency evacuation procedure using train-end doors (critical in any fire alert situation) and continuous health monitoring of the train’s condition and performance. With all of this, a 90-second headway should be possible.

Hong Kong East-West line.

Klang Valley line, Malaysia.

Another hot topic is the need, or otherwise, for secondary train detection on CBTC-equipped lines. A modern CBTC system will continuously track the progress of trains by combinations of balises, track loops, radio signals and odometry. These allow moving block to be achieved and trains to close up when traffic levels are high.

However, if the system fails, then trains come to a halt and restoring movement under degraded conditions can be a challenge. Conservative thinking leads to the provision of track circuits and/or axle counters as a secondary detection facility. This gives the control room positive information on the position of every train and allows fixed block operation to kick in with associated commands for train movement.

The pundits claim that, as well as aiding the recovery of service, it does enable stock that is not fitted for CBTC to operate and (with track circuits) enables some types of broken rails to be detected. However, secondary detection does add more complexity, with more interfaces that result in lower reliability.

So who is right? There is no easy answer, but many seem to adopt secondary detection just to be ‘on the safe side’. Recent information from Madrid Metro indicates that it has recently removed its secondary detection equipment, with a consequential improvement in system availability. The consensus seems to be that it is not worth it.

Testing and commissioning Because metros are essential to the daily life of a city, being granted an extended line closure period to introduce a new signalling system is a rare occurrence. If the line is totally new, then commissioning is all part of the project, so not a problem. For a replacement system on an existing line, the risks are considerable and, according to Daniel Woodland from Ricardo Rail UK, 67 considerations have been identified by the RSSB as needing to be assured before commissioning can take place.

Just understanding the reasons for testing and what tests are necessary is a good starting point. Modern systems are too complicated to test as a part installation, although equipment elements can be tested in the factory. Agreeing the relevant standards for the different elements, which nowadays have to include human factors, is an important consideration.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

45

46

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

New vehicle for Toronto Eglinton Crosstown Rapid Transit.

Project work has to be co-ordinated with the operational railway, which requires a major planning exercise. Beyond the obvious engineering and technical elements, it is essential to include: »» Testing accessories, including tools and test equipment; »» Calibration; »» Test trains; »» Test pass criteria; »» Admissibility of earlier test results; »» Competence requirements; »» Recording and reporting; »» Supplier compliance and quality control; »» Stakeholder involvement; »» Briefing the plan; »» Access arrangements; »» Possession details; »» Traction rail de-energisation; »» Safety rules and assurance; »» Rest periods and welfare.

Much of this might sound obvious but how many times do we witness project dates being missed or, worse still, overrun once the implementation has commenced? It is all too easy to get bad headlines in the media, with exposure of blame only worsening the situation.

Metro performance on main lines As hinted previously, a growing number of main line suburban routes in and around cities are facing metro-style capacity challenges. What technology should be adopted, when these will frequently be mixed traffic railways?

David Gill from Siemens cited the Thameslink central core in London, where ETCS level 2 will be overlaid with an ATO package to achieve 24tph. The system is actually designed to achieve 30tph but is restricted in order to allow recovery from perturbations.

The situation is helped by having only one class of train (Siemens 700) using the section. Could an ETCS Level 3 solution be better? Considerable modelling has taken place, concluding that

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

train delays would be considerably reduced with much better recovery from any system failures. As well as eliminating trackbased signalling equipment, trains are presented to junctions at orderly intervals by holding trains back at a platform if a conflict is predicted. Trains would request routes dynamically only at the last moment, and cross-coupling of delay at flat junctions would be eliminated. Under normal running conditions, however, a Level 3 system would offer only marginal performance advantages.

Metro excitement Signalling and operating a metro railway is exciting. Innovation, and the taking advantage of the latest technology, is there for all to see. Increased capacity in terms of trains per hour is the driving force with many examples worldwide enjoying the benefits.

The downside is the absence of standardisation and the ‘locking in’ to proprietary systems.

The rise of mixed metro and main line operation is an increasing demand, so the latest challenge for the supply industry and the rail operators is to establish an improved co-operative relationship, such that interoperability and interchangeability can be achieved without stifling innovative thinking.

Achieving that will be difficult but the advantages will benefit all.

Testing on the Thameslink core.

Street

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

PAUL DARLINGTON

NOKIA? What has it got to do with rail?

48

T

o many people, Nokia is only associated with that old mobile phone that’s in a drawer somewhere, probably with a flat battery. However, Nokia today is one of the world’s leading telecommunication network and system providers, both in fixed, radio and software-defined networks to both service providers and enterprises. Nokia are probably the only true global provider of e2e solutions covering fixed, radio, software and services.

Signalling and telecommunications engineers on the railway will associate Nokia with the programmable digital multiplex ‘drop and insert’ transmission equipment that was the backbone of many resignalling schemes over 25 years ago. These copper and fibre cable-based transmission systems were very advanced for the time, with the ability to be managed and configured centrally or locally via softwarehandheld terminals (this was before laptop computers were widely available).

Such remotely configurable systems are now commonplace in most industries and railways, but Nokia was years ahead in its approach and was providing digital systems decades before ‘digital’ became the buzzword, both in society and rail.

Today, Nokia is still involved in rail and is the global GSM-R (including ETCS deployment), LTE (Long Term Evolution) and IPMPLS market leader, in terms of the number of

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

commercial networks and length of operated GSM-R lines. Nokia GSM-R is deployed in 20 countries, serving more than 73,000 km of railways. The company has long been a key driver in the development of the GSM-R standard and provides a complete GSM-R portfolio of equipment, from cab radios and handheld shunting terminals to the radio access and core network elements. This includes fixed and microwave transmission, dispatcher equipment and networkmanagement systems.

Nokia is also a market leader for 4G LTE equipment and is one of the leaders in developing 5G technology. This means it is ideally placed to provide rail with the best communication solutions and, because it is involved in virtually all the available technologies, it has no vested interest in providing rail with the technology it just happens to provide and support.

And, with its extensive resources, Nokia will be available to support systems throughout its lifetime.

Outside of rail, and in the wider telecommunications industry, Nokia operates in a wide field of diversified customers and industries.

Nokia has, for some time, been expanding its mobile transport portfolio for the 5G era to address the complex and diverse challenges of mobile infrastructures.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Advertisement for Nokia Tyres, 1936.

Poster Nokia Galoshes (rubber shoes) in 1905, Finnish Rubber Works Ltd.

Its ‘anyhaul’ mobile transport solutions are built upon Nokia’s experience in mobile, microwave, IP, optical and fixed access technologies. The solutions aim to support the massive 5G scale of connectivity, bandwidth and low latency, with the dynamic programmability of service provision via cloud-based applications. Nokia takes security very seriously and it has a ‘security by design’ mindset in place across its portfolio, as well as a discrete security capability.

From paper to GSM The origins of Nokia go back to Finnish engineer Fredrik Idestam, who set up a wood pulp mill in Southern Finland in 1865, taking the first step in laying the foundation for Nokia’s capacity for innovation in technology. Sensing growing pulp product demand, Idestam opened a second mill a short time later on the Nokianvirta River, inspiring him to name his company Nokia AB. From its beginnings as a paper mill operation, Nokia has found success in several sectors over the years, including paper products, rubber boots, tyres, cable, mobile devices, and telecommunications infrastructure equipment.

It has been producing telecommunications

equipment since the 1880s - almost since telephony began - so the company’s experience in research and development is one of the best in the industry.

In the 1960s, Nokia became a conglomerate, consisting of rubber, cable, forestry, electronics and power generation businesses, resulting from a merger of Idestam’s Nokia and Finnish Cable Works, a phone and power cable producer founded in 1912.

The diversity and success in different industries over the years has mirrored Nokia’s geographical rise from a Finnish-focused company until the 1980s, to a European company in the early 1990s, and on to become a truly global company from the mid-1990s onwards.

In 1982, Nokia introduced both the first fully digital local telephone exchange in Europe and the world’s first car phone for the Nordic Mobile Telephone analogue standard (1G). The breakthrough of GSM (2G) in the 1980s introduced more efficient use of radio frequencies and higherquality sound. The first GSM call was made with a Nokia phone over the Nokia-built network of a Finnish operator called Radiolinja in 1991.

By 1998, Nokia was the world leader in mobile phones, a position it enjoyed for more than a decade. In 2007, Nokia combined its telecoms infrastructure operations with those of Siemens to create the Nokia Siemens Network joint venture, later buying the Siemens stake in NSN.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

49

50

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS The evolution of GSM-R

Part of the Nokia Small Cell Range: Combined 4G and Wi-Fi in an outdoor single device.

Alcatel-Lucent and beyond The acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent in 2016 positioned Nokia as an innovation leader in next-generation technology and services, which included the addition of Bell Labs of North America. This deepened the company’s activity into state-of-the-art network telecommunications and widened its global reach. Today, Nokia routers are used at the core of the BT digital network.

Network Rail’s Fixed Telecommunication Network (FTN) uses Alcatel-Lucent (now Nokia) transmission equipment, so Nokia equipment supports all of the UK’s GSM-R network, as well as many resignalling schemes, with fixed telecoms links.

Nokia has an unrivalled track record in innovation.

This includes: over 1,300 patent applications, eight Nobel Prizes, four Turing Prizes, two Grammys, one Emmy and an Oscar! In terms of market share, they are the world’s number 1 in copper access technology, number 2 in 4G and edge routing, and number 3 in services (source Dell’Oro’s Q3 2017 market share reports and Analysys Mason full year forecast 2016).

Nokia has 37,000 research and development professionals and has invested over €119 billion in research and development over the last 20 years.

The company employs 160 nationalities in 120 countries and, while it is rooted and headquartered in Europe, Nokia employs more people in Asia than anywhere else.

In North America, Nokia owns Bell Labs, founded

by Alexander Graham Bell and with over a hundred years of experience of research and development.

Referred to as ‘The Idea Factory’ or ‘The Crown Jewel’, Bell Labs is, arguably, the world’s leading research organisation in information technology and communications.

From the enabling infrastructure for 5G and the Internet of Things, to emerging applications in virtual reality and digital health, Nokia is a company that is equipped to shape the future of technology to transform the human experience.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Open standards drive down the costs of developing and deploying technology and Nokia has, for many years, been a strong advocate of open standards to promote interoperability to help eliminate the boundaries of technology, vendors and national frontiers.

Now that all GSM-R interfaces have been specified and standardised, operators have access to an open, interoperable and international system that drives competition and affords considerable savings.

Nokia believes that LTE radio access technology offers railway operators the opportunity to converge several separate communications systems into one fully IP-based, highly efficient and high performance technology for both operational and passenger communications.

For mainline railway operators, LTE offers sufficient high speed, high security and high bandwidth capacity for rail, making it well suited to support passenger connectivity needs, along with mission-critical operational applications such as train signalling, closed-circuit television (CCTV), on-board and emergency communications.

There is joint activity within UIC, the European Union Agency for Railway, ETSI and 3GPP to define a telecommunications system capable of replacing GSM-R and known as FRMCS (Future Radio Mobile Communication System). Nokia believes that LTE is the most suitable candidate under current standardisation activities. However, the change to LTE will require extensive technical and regulatory standardisation to achieve the necessary functionality, interoperability and a seamless migration from GSM-R. FRMCS is analysing the possible deployment scenarios, but as an example by deploying an LTE overlay network, existing GSM-R or other network sites could be re-used for a cost-effective roll out. In this way, the LTE overlay network supports broadband services, while the existing network is retained for operational voice and narrowband services.

Nokia’s advice to railway operators is to invest in LTE ahead of the completion of standardisation in order to gain the benefits of valuable applications that require higher bandwidth than today’s GSM-R can offer, whether on-board trains, track-side or in stations.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

LTE and the road to 5G At the heart of the Nokia LTE family is the Flexi Multiradio 10 base station. This is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s smallest high-capacity, softwaredefined, multi-technology base station and the small cells it can provide result in easily scalable, cost-effective capacity. The base stations can be deployed standalone or to create a zone covered by a cluster of low-powered access points connected to a local controller.

In 2016, Nokia launched its next generation AirScale Radio Access solution. This is an entirely new way to build radio access networks using any architecture topology to deliver services with unlimited capacity scaling and market-leading latency and connectivity. The solution supports all radio access technologies - 2G, 3G, 4G LTE and with Wi-Fi integrated - all of which can be run simultaneously in the base station.

So, what about the role of 5G in railway communication?

There are many in the industry talking about the huge benefits that 5G technology offers for rail, especially in the area of efficient connected rail, the Internet of Things and service management. Other promises of 5G cover the huge capacity gain and the extremely low latency - which can be expected to be initially deployed in 2020 after finalisation of the definition and standardisation phase.

Nokiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view, however, is that LTE can already deliver today the requirements for efficient train operation and enhanced travel experience, and therefore LTE is the right choice and a futureproof investment for railway operators.

LTE can fully cover the typical narrowband services, like IoT, that are primarily applicable to rail operators, while the definition of 5G is targeted for wider-spectrum use. In the future, 5G, Wi-Fi, satellite or other technologies may play a complementary role for boosting capacity for specific situations on top of LTE with extremely high bandwidth requirements, but these are likely to be far more than railways require.

Another important factor for the technology selection is the available dedicated frequency spectrum for rail operators, which will certainly be defined rather in

the narrow band area of below 10MHz than in higher bands of 5G. Even if the higher bands of 5G were used for rail, there would have to be far more radio sites than are used for GSM-R. However, as Nokia is simultaneously at the forefront of the LTE market and leading the definition of 5G technology, it is well placed to support the rail industry, whichever evolution path it travels down to replace GSM-R. With more than 30 years of experience in the sector, and the most complete portfolio of products and services, Nokia is the market leader in GSM-R, with over 80 mission-critical railway networks deployed around the world.

Rail Engineer looks forward to reporting more on the exciting technology Nokia has available for rail in the next few months.

This includes how the railways extensive copper cable network could be used to deliver high bandwidth IP links trackside, using equipment that already connects 10 million homes worldwide to the internet.

Nokia's path to 5G demo at MWC 2017.

Part of the Nokia Small Cell Range: Combined 4G and Wi-Fi in an indoor single device.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

51

52

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

Reducing the risk

from automatic level crossings

G

reat Britainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level crossing safety record is one of the best in the world and overall the risks are well managed. However, level crossings are one of the biggest sources of railway catastrophic risk and every incident has the potential for significant danger to both users of the crossing and trains.

Risk control should, where practicable, be achieved through the removal of level crossings and replacing them with bridges, underpasses or diversions. This is easier said than done, though, as the specification often includes providing access for disabled users and infant buggies. This may require ramped access which, in turn, demands land take and creates a visually intrusive construction. In many cases, there is simply not the land available.

Crossings connect communities, and closing them with diversions will, understandably, meet with local resistance.

Where removal is not possible, the risks need to be reduced as far is reasonably practicable, and this is an area where innovative technology at an affordable cost can help to reduce risk.

Risk reduction measures have to take into account all the users of crossings, with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;equal access for allâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; being a requirement.

PAUL DARLINGTON

Users of crossings may be mobility impaired (and the population is getting older). They may have hearing and sight impairments and their first language may not be English. Users may be old, young, short or tall, and those riding on mobility scooters and horses will have a different angle of view of crossing signs, signals and approaching trains compared with pedestrians.

Moving to remote operation The classic highway level crossing originally consisted of gates, controlled by an operator, which were closed to road traffic when a train approached. Such crossings were made safer with the provision of interlockings, so that protecting signals could not be cleared until the road was fully closed and the gates locked.

Similarly, approach locking ensures that the gates cannot be opened until a train has passed over the level crossing, identified by the track circuits having cleared. The crossing operator also has to check that the crossing is clear and that nobody is trapped inside the gates before the signals are cleared to allow a train to use the crossing.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS The sharp on-off of an LED’s light output, compared with the rise-fall of a traditional incandescent lamp, led to changes to the flasher drive and the proving circuitry of the light, as LEDs require less current to operate. The reliability of LED technology is now so good that there may be more failures caused by proving circuitry rather than by the LED unit itself.

Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) crossings AHB crossing with a large skew angle.

While barriers have now largely replaced the use of gates, they are still found at a number of level crossings.

Remote operation of level crossings was made possible with the introduction of CCTV technology, with an operator still responsible for checking that the crossing was clear. Such crossings are not without risk, though, and the signaller/operator has to be trained and monitored, along with the asset condition, to make sure the safe observation of the crossing is not affected by signaller error (workload), poor equipment (picture quality), or poor contrast as this can make the user’s clothing appear to blend into the background.

There is a limit to the number of crossings that can be operated by one person via CCTV, and the creation of larger signalling centres has required the development of obstacle detection equipment.

Video analytics Radar devices which ‘sweep’ the crossing and check whether it is clear have now been installed at many locations, and the concept has been a major success in fully automating the operation of full barrier crossings which are now known as obstacle detected, or simply ‘OD’, crossings.

One obvious limitation to this method of obstacle detection is that the camera or sensor needs to operate reliably in all light conditions, including fog and falling snow.

It must also not be ‘fooled’ by harmless obstacles such as paper or cardboard which may be blown onto the crossing. As a result, new methods of obstacle detection are being evaluated for the next generation of OD crossings, including video analytics as described in issue 157 (November 2017).

Systems that use video analytics may provide other benefits, such as generating data on the users of the crossing to feed into automatic risk-analysis systems. This will enable the identification of any changes of usage pattern of the crossing being automated, subject to data protection and privacy requirements.

Sunday markets, new housing developments, school bus routes, or even satellite navigation algorithms, can all change the risk profile of a level crossing.

Currently, it can be difficult to identify any changes in use without expensive traffic surveys, and even then these will only provide a snapshot in time. The use of ‘big data’ systems is an area which is becoming very important for railways to help manage assets and risks, and to target interventions and resources.

LEDs The introduction of light emitting diode (LED) technology has improved both the light output and the reliability of lights associated with level crossings. They were first introduced for use as barrier boom lamps, as the vibration when the barriers were raised or lowered affected the life of the traditional incandescent lamps. The benefits of LEDs have also been successfully migrated to the road traffic light signals (Wig-Wags), replacing the traditional 36Watt incandescent lamps.

Since AHB crossings were introduced by British Rail in the 1960s, there have been a number of changes to the design. Currently, they are not used across more than two tracks and the speed of trains over an AHB crossing should not exceed 100 mph.

Trains should not normally arrive at the crossing in less than 27 seconds after the amber lights of the road traffic light signals first show, with at least 95 per cent of trains arriving within 75 seconds and 50 per cent within 50 seconds.

There is no limit to the amount of road traffic but the carriageway on the approaches to the crossing should be sufficiently wide to enable vehicles to pass safely, with the road layout, profile and traffic conditions such that road vehicles are not likely to become grounded or ‘block back’ and obstruct the railway.

A good road profile is particularly important at an AHB as, should the crossing become occupied by a stationary road vehicle, there is no mechanism to detect the crossing is not clear and stop an approaching train. An emergency telephone is provided to alert the signaller if the crossing is occupied, but a train may only

The crossing at Ufton Nervet, Berkshire, where seven people died as a result of a collision between a car and a train in 2004, is an example of an AHB crossing where the railway crosses the road at a high skew angle. After four more fatalities, in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014, the crossing closed, replaced by a bridge, in December 2016.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

53

54

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS be 27 seconds away and with no means of stopping it. This is why only half-barriers are provided, so as to not trap vehicles and pedestrians inside the crossing barriers.

So long as they are used correctly, AHB crossings are efficient and, when compared to other types of crossing, are closed to road traffic for a relatively short period of time. This allows road traffic to keep moving with minimum disruption from the railway.

Unfortunately, AHBs are prone to misuse, with the risk of road traffic ‘weaving’ around the barriers when they are down.

Pedestrians approaching the crossing on the right-hand side, when the crossing is in use, will be met with no barrier and only the flashing light and audible alert to stop them.

The problem can be worse at ‘skew’ angled crossings with a longer time required to walk over the crossing. AHBs are therefore not suitable where there is a high volume of pedestrian users without other mitigations such as a ‘standing red man’ signal to supplement the road lights.

There are over 400 AHB crossings in use on the Network Rail network and, due to their use on higher-speed lines and potential for misuse, they present the highest risk of all crossing types. So, what can be done to reduce the risk of AHBs, while retaining their benefit of not inconveniencing road users too much?

AHB plus As long ago as 1983, the Government commissioned a report on pedestrian safety at level crossings due to concerns about their automation. This report made a recommendation concerning the use of pedestrian signals, but the introduction of these has not been widely adopted across the network.

This is now starting to change. Suitable products are now readily available and the introduction of low-current LED signals has assisted their cost effectiveness. The ‘standing red man’ signal is particularly useful in reducing risk when installed for pedestrians approaching an AHB crossing in the opposite direction to road vehicles exiting the crossing, where there is no barrier.

An additional measure for AHBs could be the introduction of programmable red LED road studs across the whole of the carriageway (Fig.1). These would deter vehicles and pedestrians from entering the crossing once a train has passed the strike in point.

A method of reducing the risk of vehicles weaving around the AHB barriers could be to provide a raised ‘median strip’ or central

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Fig.1 Red road studs.

Red, Programmable, LED Road Studs

Up Main Dn Main Existing Strike-out

Existing StrikeIn

Fig.2 Staggared barriers.

Pedestrian Escape Route

Vehicle Only Obstacle # Time,Detection to be calculated for each site, dependent upon gradient between TPWS and the crossing. Example based on gradient of 1/66F.

Up Main Dn Main Existing Strike-out

#1 Does not include allowance Existing for Strike“another train coming” controls.

In This will not affect train arrival time but will affect position of strike-in equipment.

Fig.3 Full obstical detection.

Vehicle & Pedestrian Obstacle Detection

Up Main Dn Main

TPWS Obstacle Indicator Braking Distance

5-10 Sec sighting Time

Strike-In Extended using Overlay Axle Counter

28 Sec Operating Time #1

Approx 54 secs # At 100mph With 12%G Braking

reservation in the area that separates the opposing lanes of road traffic. Such strips have been provided at level crossings in a number of countries around the world. The problem, though, is that a ‘misuser’ could still cross to the other side of the road before reaching the strip, which would also introduce a hazard to cycles and motorbikes, so this option is not favoured by the road authorities.

A more practical way of reducing the risk of weaving at AHBs would be to provide full barriers, along with the use of an obstacle detection device to raise the barrier if someone, or a vehicle, was trapped inside the barriers. This would be known as AHB plus and a number of configurations are currently being evaluated.

The first option would be to ‘stagger’ the position of the additional exit barriers so that a narrow gap was available to pedestrians between the ends of the barriers (Fig.2). A simpler ‘vehicle only’

obstacle detection device would be used to lift the exit barrier if a vehicle was detected when a train approached the crossing.

Another option could be to provide an obstacle detector for both pedestrians and vehicles, which would either prevent the exit barriers closing or lift them if the crossing was occupied (Fig.3). A further safety enhancement could include the provision of a TPWS (train protection and warning system) trigger to stop a train before it reached the occupied crossing. The time factor would need to be calculated for each site, dependent upon the gradient between the TPWS trigger and the crossing. The strike-in point would need to be extended, possibly using an overlay axle counter, to provide (for example) in the order of 54 seconds at 100mph with 12%G braking. An allowance would also need to be included for ‘another train coming’ controls.

An indication to advise a driver that his train TPWS had been triggered by a level crossing obstacle detection device would also need to be considered.

Higher Speed Installing, operating and maintaining rail infrastructure safely, quickly and efficiently, with minimal disruption is a big challenge.

Innovative solutions are needed.

Whether itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a temporary, semi-permanent or permanent access point, whatever the sleeper spacing, our customers can install a 10.8m RRAP in less than 90 minutes, reducing possession times and costs.

Rosehill Rail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Setting New Standards For more information, or to enquire about training, please call the Rosehill Rail sales team on +44 (0)1422 317 473, or email info@rosehillrail.com

1 - 3 May 2018, Stand D51 ExCel, London (Halls S7-S10) - UK

Road Crossings

//

Road Rail Access

//

Pedestrian Crossings

//

Anti-Trespass

SLEEPER SPACING INDEPENDENT

56

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS The AOCL crossing at Wraysholme, Cumbria, has been fitted with barriers to prevent accidents such as the fatal one in November 2008 when a train hit a car that was driven onto the crossing as the train approached.

ABCL and AOCL Automatic Barrier Crossings Locally Monitored (ABCL) and Automatic Open Crossings Locally Monitored (AOCL) were introduced to automate the operation of crossings on lines with lower line speeds than for an AHB. They are used on lines of no more than a 56mph line speed and ABCL crossings appear, to the road user, similar to an AHB crossing with a single barrier on both sides of the railway. Both AOCL and ABCL crossings are protected by road traffic light signals along with an audible warning for pedestrians.

As with AHB, the barriers on an ABCL only extend across the entrances to the crossing, leaving the exits clear, and are normally initiated automatically by an approaching train. However, unlike an AHB, the operation of the crossing equipment and the absence of an obstruction on the crossing are monitored by the driver of an approaching train, hence the term locally monitored.

Train drivers are required to stop their trains short of the crossing unless they have received an indication (in the form of a white light) to confirm that the crossing equipment is functioning correctly and have observed that the crossing is clear.

AOCL crossings are similar but, as the name suggests, they are open, with no barriers and with only the flashing lights and audible alert to stop users entering the crossing. Following a number of serious accidents, with vehicles entering the crossing just as a train was approaching and with no time to stop, AOCLs on the main rail network have been retrofitted with entrance barriers. As far as users are concerned, they now appear to be the same as ABCL crossings, but are known as AOCL+B. The reason for this is because the barrier is a ‘bolt on’ to the existing AOCL circuitry, and there are subtle differences in failure modes and how they operate under local control compared to an ABCL, hence the different designations.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

With the lower line speed and local monitoring, along with trains being able to stop if the crossing is occupied by a stationary road vehicle, both ABCL and AOCL+B crossings carry a lower risk than an AHB. However, the risk of road vehicles weaving around the entrance barriers is similar, therefore the addition of exit barriers would further reduce the risk profile.

Such a crossing would be known as an Automatic Full Barrier Crossing Locally Supervised, AFBCL. This is fundamentally a locally monitored crossing with elements of an OD system to determine whether, once the entrance barriers are down, the crossing is clear of standing pedestrians and the lowering of the exit barriers can commence.

The Drivers White Light would only be given once all the barriers were fully down.

In the unlikely event of a trapped user (vehicle or pedestrian), the train driver would be able to raise and re-lower the exit barriers using a Drivers Release Unit (DRU).

ETCS A new challenge faced by level crossing engineers is integrating the operation of level crossings with ETCS (European Train Control System) Level 2 Baseline 3.

Reducing the variation in road closure times not only minimises the economic impact of unnecessarily delaying road or rail traffic at level crossing, but it also influences

risk, as large variations in closure times have been known to increase the risks taken by road users. If the variance in closure times is reduced, impatient drivers are less inclined to ignore, or weave around, barriers.

Systems to provide constant warning times at crossings for large variations of train speeds have had mixed success. ETCS, with its constant ability to report train location and speed, could reduce the amount of variations in the warning times and replace the trackside strike-in equipment. It is an area that requires further development, and one that is very important for Great Britain, given the number of crossings that may exist on routes to be fitted with ETCS.

Level crossings in the future Autonomous road vehicles are just around the corner (no pun intended) and will be capable of being connected to the environment in which they operate.

So, could the automatic level crossing of the future communicate directly with approaching vehicles and warn drivers that a train is approaching? Could the level crossing system of the future actually take control of a road vehicle and bring it to a stop safely before reaching the crossing?

The collection of real time data about crossing use will be key to the management of level crossings, both in asset management and in real time terms. Could ‘big data’ from the road system be linked to the rail traffic management system, such that the railway operation may be modified if, say, children or a slow-moving vehicle approach the crossing?

What is certain is that technology advancements will continue to reduce the risks associated with level crossings.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

IP ON-BOARD TRAIN COMMS Key Clamp Handrail System Manufactured with simplicity and ease of installation in mind With only an Allen key or ratchet key required to assemble and tighten grub screws or join galvanised tubes, you can install this handrail system in a matter of seconds! Available in a range of polyester powder coated colours and finished with a weather resistant galvanised coating.

• Handrails • Pedestrian & safety barriers • Roof Edge Protection

GOT A PROJECT IN MIND? CALL US ON 0117 970 2420

Visit us online today at eziklampsystems.com

SUPPLIERS OF SAFETY CRITICAL & CONTROL SOLUTIONS SUPPLIERS OF SAFETY CRITICAL & CONTROL SOLUTIONS  TRACTION POWER SCADA SOLUTIONS  TRACTIONOF POWER SCADA SOLUTIONS SUPPLIERS SAFETY CRITICALMANAGEMENT & CONTROL  INTEGRATED STATION & COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS SUPPLIERS OF S AFETY C RITICAL & C ONTROL SOLUTIONS  STATION & COMMUNICATION  ITNTEGRATED RACTION POWER SCADA SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS               

SAFE AND SECURE SAFE AND SECURE SAFE AND SECURE SAFE AND SECURE

STATION INFORMATION & SECURITY SYSTEM DELIVERY TSTATION RACTIONINFORMATION POWER SCADA OLUTIONS &COMMUNICATION SSECURITY SYSTEM DANAGEMENT ELIVERY INTEGRATED SYSTEMS COTS BASEDSSTATION AFETY & PLC SOLUTIONS FOR M CONTROL ICOTS NTEGRATED S TATION & C OMMUNICATION M ANAGEMENT SYSTEMS B ASED S AFETY PLC S OLUTIONS FOR C ONTROL & S/C ECURITY ELIVERY SSTATION ELECTIVEINFORMATION DOOR OPENING ORRECTSYSTEM SIDE DD OOR ENABLING APPLICATIONS SSTATION INFORMATION & S/C ECURITY D ELIVERY ELECTIVE DOOR OPENING ORRECTSYSTEM SFOR IDE D OOR ENABLING APPLICATIONS COTS BASED SOLUTIONS CONTROL NETWORK RAILSAFETY PADSPLC CERTIFIED PRODUCTS COTS BASED SAFETY PLC SOLUTIONS FOR CONTROL N ETWORK ROOR AIL PADS CERTIFIED PRODUCTS D OPENING /CORRECT SIDE DOOR ENABLING APPLICATIONS TSELECTIVE RAIN CONTROL & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STELECTIVE DOOR & OPENING /CORRECT SIDE DOOR ENABLING APPLICATIONS CONTROL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NRAIN ETWORK RAIL PADS CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

 NETWORK RAIL PADS CERTIFIED PRODUCTS  TRAIN CONTROL & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS  TRAIN CONTROL & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Sella Controls Limited Sella Controls Limited Carrington Field Street, Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 3JN, United Kingdom T: Carrington Field Street, Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 3JN, United Kingdom T: Sella Controls Limited Sella Controls Limited Carrington Field Street, Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 3JN, United Kingdom T: Carrington Field Street, Stockport , Cheshire, SK1 3JN, United Kingdom T:

+44 (0) 161 429 4500 E: sales@sellacontrols.com +44 (0) 161 429 4500 E: sales@sellacontrols.com +44 (0) 161 429 4500 E: sales@sellacontrols.com +44 (0) 161 429 4500 E: sales@sellacontrols.com Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

57

58

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS

Communications on the Central Line

O

perational communications are important in supporting both signalling and power control on any railway but, for a major city metro line, the need becomes ever more essential. The communications systems are there to monitor the safe state of the infrastructure and to be the means of controlling the activities and movement of staff and customers in any emergency situation.

In short, such systems are vital and have to be available on a 24/7 basis. So when an existing system has to be replaced by a more modern technology, without disruption to service, one begins to get a feel for the challenge of the task.

This is exactly the scenario that has been taking place on the London Underground Central line during a recent upgrade. Rail Engineer went to visit the line’s control room in West London, to see what was involved and to meet with the system supplier and the control room staff.

Communications Control System (CCS) The Central line extends from Ealing Broadway and West Ruislip in the west to Epping and the Hainault loop in the east. There are 47 stations with 12 major interchanges to other lines and around 50% of the route in deep level tube tunnel.

The line has operated in ATO (Automatic Train Operation) mode since 1994, this system being supplied by Westinghouse.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

The CCS provides connectivity with the CCTV and public address systems on all stations, the operational and LU telephone networks, the emergency traction discharge system (ETCDS) to shut off power and alarm monitoring from equipment rooms and stations. All this requires a dedicated transmission and telephone exchange network with recording equipment for both voice calls and limited video capture.

Providing a replacement system was entrusted to Sella Controls (formerly Hima Sella). The project is termed a ‘brownfield’ challenge, meaning that all facilities have to be kept in operation, the new control system has to interface with existing equipment at stations and in tunnels, all while retaining the transmission bandwidth obtained from the LU ‘Connect’ network. Not an easy assignment, with lots of opportunities for things to be misunderstood with consequent variation to requirements.

CLIVE KESSELL

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS CCS training room.

Another challenge was the humanmachine interface (HMI) - in short, the operational workstation screens.

Because the change from old to new would be a gradual process, the layout and operation of the screens needed to be kept essentially similar. This meant that a lot of the features normally available as standard in a ‘greenfield’ project (i.e. a completely new control room) could not be incorporated in the way the supplier would like and either had to be abandoned in the short term or formatted in a different way. In consequence, much bespoke adaptation was needed, this being one of Sella Controls’ strengths.

It should be noted that the CCS is there for the operation of the railway and not communicating with the travelling public.

Thus, help points, information displays, routine public address announcements and public accessible telephones are handled by station-based systems.

Control centre equipment The Control Room has 11 workstations for the control room staff and the duty engineers, all of which have access to the CCS screens. There is also a twelfth workstation located at a separate back up installation. The CCS has two central systems (A and B) within the communications equipment room (CER), each feeding the operational workstations.

This gives the necessary redundancy which ensures continued operation in the event of any CCS equipment problem.

Each CCS system has, at its heart, two Amplicom servers, the company handbuilding its products to Sella Controls specification. These are different to the many servers produced for the mass market in that they are intended for a 15-year service life as against the typical five years for normal commercial usage.

A prime role within the CCS is the monitoring of sub-system alarms, to diagnose the implications, to decide

CCS alarm screen.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

59

60

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS CCS tunnel telephone status display. on the urgency and to direct any fault investigation and fault rectification. So often in alarm monitoring presentations, these just appear as a status list of equipment conditions with a red or green marker to indicate whether the equipment is in good order or failed. This is not always very helpful and can result in technicians being despatched to site without any real knowledge as to the seriousness of the problem.

In the new CCS, the screen alarm can be ‘drilled down’ to establish the precise nature of the alarm condition and to show a graphic of the particular card with its LED status. Thus any technician is made aware of where the fault may lie and the precise piece of equipment to be investigated for re-set or change out.

Whilst aiming to mirror the original workstation screen layout and functionality, the diagnostic terminal in the equipment room, which gives an overview of all the station systems, was viewed by one of the duty engineers. Recognising the value of this screen, similar units have now been installed in the control room to assist the controllers in establishing a first analysis of the problem when an alarm is received from anywhere on the line.

The control room has to cope with an inevitable turnover of staff and the consequential training of replacement controllers. To do this on the live system is impractical, so a separate training room is provided in an adjacent office. The workstation layout is identical to the real thing but with the ability for the trainer to simulate typical situations that might arise, including some challenging faults.

Dikos system diagnostics.

Central line control room.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Exchange network The core of the CCS is the central exchange unit and 19 smaller linked exchanges at the signalling interlocking sites throughout the line. The exchanges, known as Dikos units, are provided by Funkwerk, a German company which has a close liaison with Sella Controls. These replace an earlier Dikos unit (model 210) with the current 310 series that has more capacity and a faster processing speed.

As for the control room servers, these exchanges are industrial quality and intended for an extended service life of around 15 years - the previous units achieving 20 years.

Operational telephones of various types and specification throughout the Central line (mainly ISDN models) are connected to one or other of the exchanges. This is a self-contained network, kept separate from the general-purpose LU telecoms facilities, so as not to experience any busy

conditions if an emergency occurs. Tie lines do enable access to the LU network, but connection to external lines out into the wider world is barred. All voice calls are recorded using NICE recorders.

Tunnel telephones and power control The traditional London Underground system for tube drivers to speak with control, by means of clipping a telephone on to a pair of exposed copper wires fixed to the tunnel wall at cab height, has been superseded by the advent of the Connect Tetra radio network.

Whilst partly replaced by fixed telephones located on tunnel headwalls, the two copper wires are retained for their other purpose of getting the traction power switched off in an emergency, achieved by shorting the two wires together or by clipping on a ‘shorting’ connection. The electric traction power control is immediately alerted to this condition and sets in motion, via the CCS, an investigation as to what has occurred.

As the duty engineer remarked: “It is easy enough to get the power off but quite complicated to get it switched on again.”

The tripwire system is segmented into 16 sections for the whole of the Central line. Part of the new CCS project has been the provision of an interlock between the control room equipment and the power controllers (located elsewhere) that prevents power being restored until the CCS controllers are satisfied it is safe to do so. This will involve establishing the cause of the trip, ensuring that no one is touching or adjacent to the conductor rails, and confirming that any fault causation has been rectified. Only then will the release be made to the traction control room to re-energise.

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS CCTV monitoring Many hundreds of cameras exist on the Central line to observe and monitor passenger movements, overcrowding, unforeseen incidents and suchlike.

At Bank station alone, there are over 380 cameras to view all the platforms, interchange passages, escalators, ticket offices and public areas. Smaller stations will have, typically, around 12 cameras with several hundred cameras being needed to cover the entire line.

Viewing and recording all the images is a logistical challenge and well beyond the resource capability of the CCS controllers.

Monitoring and recording the day-to-day images is done at the individual stations, some of these being grouped together into clusters, where local staff have the knowledge and expertise to deal with typical daily situations.

If, however, any incident or emergency occurs, the CCS system can call up the appropriate cameras to observe the conditions and commence recording the images. Any equipment room intruder alarm will automatically switch on the camera for that location. The CCS control is primarily interested in safety situations, so station platforms where overcrowding is a regular problem will be reviewed more frequently than, say, ticket halls.

Under the CCS contract, the existing CCTV cameras were not replaced, these being mainly analogue from a variety of suppliers. Sella Controls had to ensure that all these camera outputs could be successfully transmitted via analogue to digital converters and the LU transmission network to the Central line control room with the appropriate level of resilience and quality.

One limitation of having to mimic the existing HMI has been the restricted number of images that can be portrayed simultaneously. Originally this was limited to two, but subsequent negotiation and adaptation has allowed this to be increased.

CCS station status display.

CCS transmission rings.

Transmitting the information London Underground has a selfcontained fibre-based digital transmission network known as Connect, provided

by Thales under a design, install, and maintain arrangement. Used initially to support the new Tetra radio network, the networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s huge bandwidth is available for other applications, including the CCS. Connect is arranged in a number of resilient rings and CCS makes use of five of them. Station equipment is connected via appropriate interfaces to a particular ring, each having a termination in the control centre equipment room. Any ring breakage will not impact on service, as communications traffic will be routed the other way.

However, to increase resilience, additional digital transmission links have been installed to connect rings together at a convenient out-station location, sometimes allowing station telecom equipment to be directly connected to these links, thus giving a quadruple path back to the control.

Commissioning and maintenance From contract award in 2011, the new CCS was fully commissioned in July 2016.

As is customary with brownfield projects, a continuing dialogue was required

between contractor and client to ensure that system design and deliverables were in line with the customer expectations, necessitating a number of design changes along the way.

Sella Controls provided maintenance cover for the 18-month period since commissioning. This ceased in January 2018, whence Telent (which has a general maintenance contract for telecommunications equipment on LU) took over the front line maintenance activities. Sella Controls retains a second line support role as well as training Telent technicians on the structure and equipment configuration of the CCS. Whilst the CCS system is very reliable, processes are in place to acknowledge any failure within 60 minutes of its occurrence and, if second line attention is needed, Sella has to respond within four hours plus a 48-hour limit to fix the problem. If this requires a software modification, often this will be achieved via a temporary patch, giving time for a fully tested permanent solution to be progressed.

As to the future, TfLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision is for an all-London telecoms network to support its transport operations. As well as the Underground, this will include the bus network, DLR, bike hire and other transport-related activities. When and how this will happen remains to be seen, but it is likely that existing telecom networks will be absorbed into the new vision, interfacing and adapting to a high-level management system to avoid wholesale replacement. Rail Engineer will watch developments.

Thanks to Transport for London and to Chris Elliott and Adrian Martin from Sella Controls for facilitating the visit.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

61

62

FEATURE

Are they the Future for Track Renewal Surveys?

COLLIN CARR

DRONES I

remember my early days as a railway engineer, when it was our job to carry out a detailed site survey in preparation for a track renewal. I also remember the words of wisdom offered to me by the senior technician in charge at the time. He said to me: “You just need to make sure that you get the survey right, and the rest will just follow on.”

So, armed with these wise words hewn from years of experience, and supported by the very capable assistance of the local survey gang, we proceeded to walk through the site to be relayed, checking for any overhead obstructions, over and under bridges and so on.

This was followed by a more detailed survey with regular ‘sixfoot’ measurements taken from the adjacent line then offsets were measured from a constant chord length throughout the curved and transitional elements of the layout, carefully recording all the detail in our survey book.

This work was carried out whilst trains were passing at line speed, the protection being a lookout man with another lookout in advance.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

Preparing the Hallade scheme Back in the van, the Sudokuliterate engineer would be developing a Hallade survey based on the measurements that we had collected. The scheme would be designed to accommodate the new proposed line speeds following the renewal.

The best bit then followed driving wooden pegs into the cess ballast at set distances, a very therapeutic pastime, before tapping nails into the pegs offering a final and accurate offset designed for the new layout.

As you would expect, there was always a constant banter, often focused on how this process could be made more efficient - laser technology for example, was beginning to emerge as a possibility.

However, we knew that driving in wooden pegs and dodging trains was going to be the norm for some time.

FEATURE I am pretty sure that the thought of a drone fulfilling all these requirements would have been quickly dismissed as fantasy, more suited to an Isaac Asimov novel than the realities of track renewal.

Well, science fiction is becoming reality and the first track renewal with a detailed survey developed using drone technology will be undertaken in the next few months at Salfords, located on Network Rail’s South East Route in Sussex. The site is approximately 500 metres long and includes four main line tracks, three S&C units and two sidings.

Rail Engineer spoke to Adam Littlewood, who is the Network Rail Infrastructure Projects (IP) track development programme manager responsible for this work, along with Michael Alldis, the project manager accountable for ensuring that the chosen technology achieves the challenging project schedule and delivers the requirements specified.

list of customers, and one of the newest of these services is wrapped round its Vogel R3D, which is a unique Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) - a ‘drone’ to you and me!

So why is it that this piece of technology is now catching the eye of those involved in track renewal?

One of the reasons is that the Thameslink project is planned for completion by the end of this year, and Network

Salfords is one of a number of projects commissioned for this resilient programme for delivery

by IP Track.

Also, like many of the projects identified, the site at Salfords is one where it is difficult to get possession to enable a survey to be carried out safely. When a possession is offered, the time allowed is usually very limited and the cost of ensuring that the work is carried out safely becomes significant. This is what encouraged Michael to start looking at alternative approaches and why the Vogel R3D UAV drone started to look like a very attractive option.

Control points

Vogel R3D UAV To help Adam and Michael achieve this objective, Network Rail has procured the services of Plowman Craven, a firm of chartered surveyors based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire. It operates worldwide, having developed a full range of measurement services to a long

Rail has been developing a resilience programme of work, identifying locations where the infrastructure needs attention to ensure that the new route is robust and ready to receive the new Thameslink rail service. A £50 million package of accelerated track renewal work has been identified, and

The work on site can be carried out by just three skilled operatives without needing to take a possession. The first task is to position a series of survey control points, the equivalent of the wooden pegs referred to earlier. However, as the control points are placed more than two metres away from the tracks, in a place of safety, there is time to fix concrete cones or small monuments with an exposed metal pin.

Once this work is completed, additional targets for the UAV to locate are placed around the site. These are usually black and white crosses on wooden boards or similar. Again, these are positioned outside the twometre envelope to ensure safe working without the need for costly protection.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

63

64

FEATURE

These coordinates are then established using normal surveying techniques, such as a total station. Then the Drone comes into action. But the Vogel R3D is no ordinary drone. It has a 100-megapixel camera, weighs about 9kg and, if you wanted to buy one, you would need in excess of £90,000. In terms of drone technology, the Vogel R3D is a very good quality product and therefore has a high level of accuracy - a critical factor when carrying out such a survey.

One of the three operatives is the pilot in charge of what is, effectively, a small aeroplane and has a license issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. Therefore, as might be expected, the pilot carries out pre-flight checks following the appropriate procedures outlined in a 300-page manual to get the drone into the air. The drone is manoeuvred using a combination of GPS and manual control.

The second person’s responsibility is to control the camera and to assist the pilot, ensuring that they avoid any identified hazards. The role of pilot and camera-operator are often interchangeable.

The third person’s role is as general assistant, downloading data, charging batteries and managing the site.

Overlapping photographs For the Salfords track renewal survey, the drone operated at a height of between 25 and 35 metres and was in the air for about 12 to 15 minutes for each flight, with between 10 and 15 flights each day. During

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

the three days, more than 8,000 overlapping photographs were taken, each photograph is about 80MB in size.

At present, there is no measurement capability to determine the size of the images captured. So Plowman Craven uses a well-established process, not dissimilar to techniques used by reconnaissance in WW2, whereby two overlapping photographs intercept a common position and the stereo effect enables the height to be determined. Computer software “Pixel Matching” carries out this procedure thousands of times, enabling a 3D picture to emerge.

3D Point Cloud A huge series of numbers, each with x, y, z coordinates, provides raw measuring data that forms a ‘Point Cloud’.

This, in turn, uses the reference targets referred to earlier, enabling them to match into the survey grid. The 3D Point Cloud is a key element of the process because, once this information is put into CAD software, reality starts to emerge and the welds, joints, rails, sleepers and ballast start to be defined.

All is revealed, as is a very detailed track survey. This work has been carried out, working in a safe environment, without interrupting the train service and at minimum cost. In addition, the process offers a lot more information than that used for the track renewal. Undoubtedly, this additional information will become useful over time, offering a significant amount of additional value.

High level of accuracy Vogel has now completed five different schemes and is becoming an established option. Also, it is evident that the potential financial savings are significant. The accuracy of the survey is between 0 and 5mm and Plowman Craven is now able to get the accuracy down to a level of 2mm with some consistency. Other drone systems tend to operate at an accuracy of 30 to 60mm.

So what are the next steps?

To date, detailed trials have been undertaken to prove the accuracy of Vogel R3D and compare the data to traditional survey techniques. Vogel R3D meets Network Rail’s Band 1 accuracy requirements and is therefore suitable for track alignment and topographic survey at all GRIP stages.

It is exciting times for track renewal engineers and for drone technology. The future of surveying appears to be up in the skies. However, I found it very reassuring that local control points are still required, so the opportunity for banging a few wooden pegs into the ballast might continue.

It really is very therapeutic!

66

FEATURE

Is hydrogen

DAVID SHIRRES

the answer?

R

ail Engineer’s feature on hydrogen trains in the January issue (issue 159) raised the possibility that, despite its good green credentials, the rail industry’s use of rail diesel traction could soon become unacceptable. A few weeks later, Transport Minister Jo Johnson said exactly this in a speech stating that he wished to see “all diesel-only trains off the track by 2040” and saw “alternative-fuel trains powered entirely by hydrogen” to be a prize on the horizon. His speech also called on the industry to provide a vision for how it plans to decarbonise and report back by the autumn.

Below: Alstom’s Coradia iLint.

Inset: The iLint’s roofmounted hydrogen fuel cells.

That recent feature on hydrogen trains concluded that, in the long-term, the replacement of DMUs by HMUs is a realistic goal. Readers may also have gathered that Rail Engineer is a fan of hydrogen.

Not only does it provide zero emissions and a possible zerocarbon means of transport but, as an energy vector, it also offers large-scale energy storage to absorb excess off-peak wind power generation.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

The tiny Orkney island of Eday provides an interesting example. The island has installed a 0.5MW electrolysis plant to export its surplus wind power as hydrogen to Kirkwall, on Orkney’s mainland, where it is used to power the grid.

Part of the solution For these reasons, hydrogen has got to be part of the solution, although it cannot be the only one. As with all technologies, it should only be used when appropriate. A limiting factor for hydrogen is its energy density of 2.7MJ/litre (at 350bar on Alstom’s hydrogen iLint train) which is less than a tenth that of diesel (35.8MJ/ litre).

Alstom’s iLint hydrogen train is a hybrid unit that makes clever use of a 225kW traction battery to supplement the power of its 200kW fuel cell to give the same performance and range as a diesel multiple unit train.

For much of the time, the fuel cell keeps the batteries fully charged. When accelerating, the iLint is powered by both its traction battery and fuel cell to deliver a maximum power to weight ratio of 8kW /tonne, comparable with a dieselpowered Hitachi bi-mode.

Battery-powered trains also offer zero emissions at the point of use. However, they are limited by the low energy density of batteries which ranges from 0.56MJ/litre for lead acid to 2.63MJ/litre for lithium ion.

Furthermore, unlike diesel trains, batteries cannot be instantly refuelled. For this reason, batterypowered trains are generally only suitable for journeys from an electric line onto a short nonelectrified branch.

Such an IPEMU (independently power electric multiple unit) application was recently trialled

FEATURE on the Harwich branch where it ran for 50km under electric power and 30km powered solely by battery, as described in our “Batteries included” feature (issue 125, March 2015).

Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) offers lower fuel costs and reduced carbon and particulate emissions. There is significant interest in its use on North American freight railroads, which spend around $12 billion a year on diesel. Last year, the Florida East Coast Railway became the first US railway to operate its entire mainline fleet on LNG. The company claims that this results in an eighty per cent reduction in Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions.

In Russia, LNG is used to power a fleet of gas turbine locomotives.

An extensive refuelling infrastructure is required for LNG-powered locomotives, which need a separate tender vehicle containing an insulated double-walled tank in which the fuel is kept refrigerated at -160°C. At 22MJ/litre, LNG’s energy density is two-thirds that of diesel and the performance of LNG trains could be comparable to diesel trains.

Alternative fuel limitations LNG is unlikely to be a practical proposition for rail passenger units. If used to power locomotives, it would require the train to be lengthened by an extra vehicle to carry the LNG tank.

Hydrogen and battery technologies offer significant benefits, which will no doubt be developed further. However, their low energy densities will always be a significant constraint. For this reason, there is no prospect of self-powered rail traction using alternative fuels for high-power rail traction.

Rail Freight Group executive director Maggie Simpson made this point in her response

Above: Russian Railway’s LNG-fuelled gas-turbine locomotive. A hydrogenfuelled locomotive would also require a tender vehicle for hydrogen tanks.

Inset: The IPEMU’s sponsors.

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

67

68

FEATURE Compared with GW electrification, OLE structures on the Barcelona to Madrid high speed line are lightweight (apologies for the poorquality photograph due to it being taken at 300 km/h).

to Johnson’s statement. She noted that, whilst battery and hydrogen ‘may show promise for lightweight passenger trains, their application for heavy duty freight is at best unproven and setting an arbitrary deadline of 2040 could well therefore be counterproductive, damaging the case for investment’. She advised that RFG would like to see the “continued affordable electrification of the strategic freight network”.

Yet, in his call for the railway to decarbonise, Johnson expects that batteries and hydrogen will replace the diesel engines on bi-mode trains. His advisers would seem to be unaware of the fundamental constraints of these technologies. In his speech, Johnson also seemed to dismiss electrification by stating that it was “unlikely to be the most cost-effective way to secure these vital environmental benefits”.

Zero-carbon electrification

Installation on the innovative lowcost Paisley Canal electrification scheme.

Although Johnson’s expectation that greener alternatives will replace diesel is not unreasonable for lightly used lines, this aspiration is unrealistic for busy core routes that require highpowered traction. For these, electrification is the only option that offers the prospective of zero-carbon rail traction as an

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

increasing proportion of Britain’s electricity becomes generated by renewals. The use of wind turbines to provide all the power for electrified railways in the Netherlands shows what can be done.

Furthermore, busy electrified routes carry far more traffic than rural lines, and so offer far greater environmental benefits than alternative-fuelled selfpowered vehicles.

Whilst electrification’s high initial capital cost gives it a poor business case for rural routes, this is not the case for busy main lines. The economic case for electrification is recognised by many countries that have a high percentage of their rail network electrified. These include

Netherlands (76 per cent), Italy (71 per cent) and Spain (61 per cent). In the UK, just 42 per cent of the network is electrified.

Electrification offers improved passenger benefits with its greater acceleration and speed.

For example, a bi-mode class 800/2 has a power to weight ratio of 11.2kW/tonne in electric mode and 6.9kW/tonne in diesel mode.

Electrification also offers enormous operational cost savings. A recent report by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) on rolling stock costs showed that, whilst the Virgin Trains fleet portfolio includes only 15 per cent diesel rolling stock, diesel accounts for 40 per cent of its total energy costs, making it around four times the cost of electric traction. One reason for this is that, unlike diesels, electric trains can absorb the huge amount of energy required to brake a train and regenerate it back into the grid.

The high maintenance and capital cost of diesel trains is illustrated in a National Audit Office report that considered the procurement of Hitachi IEP bi-mode trains, which includes a 28-year maintenance contract.

This showed that the Great Western IEPs, which frequently operate under diesel power, cost £4 million more per vehicle than the mostly all-electric East Coast IEPs.

FEATURE Unnecessarily high electrification costs The Government, not unreasonably, considers the current high cost of electrification to be unacceptable and has cut back electrification schemes as a result. The recent feature “Electrification as it used to be” (issue 158, December 2017) showed that, at today’s prices, the cost of electrifying the Great Western main line is seven times the track-milecost of British Rail’s East coast electrification. Whilst this is not a totally fair comparison, given changes to standards and the increase in traffic since the days of BR, it does show the need to understand why Great Western electrification cost so much.

In its report ‘A breath of fresh air: new solutions to reduce transport emissions’, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers recommended that the “DfT instructs Network Rail to develop an appropriate specification for railway

electrification, which will achieve an affordable business case for a rolling programme to complete the electrification of main lines between Britain’s principal cities and ports, and of urban rail networks through our major city centres.” In making this recommendation, the Institution believes it should be possible to drive down electrification costs and is also suggesting that having a rolling programme, as is the case in Scotland, is one way of doing this.

Jo Johnson is right to suggest that hydrogen and batteries can decarbonise rail traction. However, for very real engineering reasons, they can only be part of the solution.

The politics of electrification are such that the Government is forced to make misleading statements to justify its cutbacks. For example, Chris Grayling’s recent statement that, with bi-mode trains, “we no longer need to electrify every line to achieve the same significant improvements to

journeys”, ignores the laws of physics - improved journey times requires more powerful trains. An electrically powered bi-mode is almost fifty percent more powerful than a diesel bi-mode.

The industry’s response to Johnson’s call for decarbonisation solutions must focus on engineering issues. If so, it can only reach the same conclusion that the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has, which is that cost-effective electrification is the only way to deliver significant carbon and emission reductions.

First electric passenger train on the newly electrified Edinburgh to Glasgow line.

Queen’s Award Winning Composite Product Solutions Station Platforms

Structural Stair Treads

Dura Platform Composite Station Platforms for New Builds and Refurbs

Dura Slab Composite Stair Treads & Landings with Built-in Riser for Rapid Install

BEFORE

AFTER

Dura Composites’ FRP solutions are the ideal replacement for traditional wood, metal and concrete products. Our products are compliant to Network Rail RIS-7700-INS standard.

UK Head Office | +44 (0)1255 440291 | www.duracomposites.com

...designed for the future Industrial

Rail

Marine

Decking

Cladding

Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

69

70

CAREERS

Bridgeway Consulting Ltd have an exciting opportunity for a Midlands based

Professional Head of Rail Infrastructure Role

• Provide professional asset management

leadership for Rail Infrastructure maintenance delivery and support

• Work with stakeholders/contractors to optimise engineering activities

• Advise on how assets can be managed

efficiently using risk-based maintenance and minimising whole life cost

• Provide assurance of competence of contractors

Responsibilities

• Provide safety assurance in accordance with the Clients’ Safety Management Systems for all parties undertaking work

• Control risks arising from maintenance of

track, OLE, structures, tunnels, level crossings and other infrastructure

Qualifications and Experience

• Be able to demonstrate management of multiple disciplines and subcontractors

• Be experienced in the delivery of Rail Infrastructure inspection, maintenance and renewals

• Degree/HND qualified or appropriate industry experience/competence

• Monitor asset performance to inform

• Sentinel PTS qualified

• Provide reports and relevant KPIs to the Client

Candidates must:

maintenance of arising work on asset conditions

• Provide support to the Client in generating specifications for Upgrade Works

• Be prepared to work some nights, weekends, bank holidays

• Hold a valid UK Driving Licence

To apply, please send your CV quoting the reference number IS2018020101 to recruitment@bridgeway-consulting.co.uk or contact us on 0115 919 1111.

Problem solvers wanted

At Frazer-Nash, our clients come to us because our experts provide the very best in teamwork, technical expertise and customer service.

So, if you’ve always sought challenging, complex projects and prefer to focus on solutions, not obstacles, we want to hear from you.

At Frazer-Nash, our experts are renowned for their work in the aerospace, transport, nuclear, marine, defence, power and energy sectors and their security, resilience, cyber and information technology expertise.

Our offices UK: Basingstoke • Bristol • Burton • Dorchester • Dorking • Glasgow • Gloucester • Plymouth • Warrington Australia: Adelaide • Canberra • Melbourne

SYSTEMS AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY Rail Engineer | Issue 161 | March 2018

www.fnc.co.uk

way People

THE HEART OF UK RAIL Launched in 2001, RailwayPeople.com is the largest dedicated rail job site in the UK.

N KI C BA

A

be

18 0 2

t te

lw ai r r

a

or yf

a

t be

te

r

i ita r B

n

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS www.railpartnershipawards.com

ENTER THE AWARDS NETWORK RAIL TODAY PARTNERSHIP

201 2018 2017

AWARD CATEGORIES BELOW – DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: FRIDAY 23 MARCH 2018

Best Collaboration

Community Engagement

Putting Passengers First

Diversity and Inclusion

Safety

Best Medium Project of 2017

Driving Efficiencies

SME of the Year

Best Small Project of 2017

Investing in People

Sustainable Excellence

Best use of Technology

Preserving the History of the Railway

Supplier of the Year

Best Large Project of 2017

THURSDAY 7 JUNE 2018 – THE VOX BIRMINGHAM

AW