Rail Engineer - Issue 182 - March 2020

by rail engineers for rail engineers

MARCH 2020 – ISSUE 182

© FOUR BY THREE

OUT OF RE ACH ELECTRIFICATION – THE NET-ZERO IMPERATIVE As the Government moves forward with its zero-carbon agenda, a rolling programme of electrification is now essential.

COLLIS HITS 50 NOT OUT

OVERCOMING THE OBSTACLE

Derby-based multi-disciplinary contractor Collis Engineering celebrates 50 years in business and is still introducing innovative new products.

Steventon Bridge was a seemingly insurmountable problem for Great Western electrification, until Atkins came up with a solution.

www.railengineer.co.uk

SIGNALLING TELECOMS

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWARDS www.railpartnershipawards.com/nominate

RAIL PARTNERSHIP AWA ENTERNETWORK THESE CATEGORIES TODAY

201 2018

2017

Best Collaboration

Medium-sized SME of the Year

Regional Partner of the Year – Southern

Best Innovation

Putting Passengers First

Regional Partner of the Year – Wales and Western

Best Project

Regional Partner of the Year – Eastern

Safety

Contribution to Railway Heritage

Regional Partner of the Year – North West and Central

Small/Micro SME of the Year

Driving Efficiencies

Investing in People

Regional Partner of the Year – Scotland’s Railways Regional Award for Exceptional Community Engagement

Sustainable Excellence

Partner of the Year

TUESDAY, 30TH JUNE 2020 – THE VOX BIRMINGHAM

26 CONTENTS

36

06|

News Infrarail, HS2, Alstom/Bombardier, University of Huddersfield Institute of Railway Research, electrification

10|

Out of reach Graeme Bickerdike describes how Alun Griffiths and Total Rail Solutions used new technology in an old cutting.

18|

Planning for the unthinkable Polly Rivers discovers why rail contractors need insurance advice from specialists such as Jobson James.

22

22|

3

From awkward to straightforward

Grahame Taylor considers how Rhomberg Sersa's ITC BL4 revels in jobs on the 'difficult list'.

50

26|

Intermodal solutions Siemens Mobility, HaCon, eos.uptrade and Bytemark are improving passengers’ journey experience.

28|

Getting electrification done – the net-zero imperative David Shirres explains how the electrified network has to grow over the next 30 years.

34|

TIGER is released into the paperwork jungle The new Track Integrated Geometry Engineers Reports are reducing paperwork by doing everything online.

50|

Collis hits 50 not out Lesley Brown visits Collis Engineering – a multidisciplinary specialist still going strong on its 50th birthday.

36|

Batteries come of age Electric cars are now fairly commonplace, but 25-tonne excavators? Or a 111-tonne gross vehicle weight dumper?

52|

Improving new train introduction - industry requirements Malcolm Dobell completes his review of recent experiences as new trains come into service.

40|

Cyber security update Paul Darlington explores Nokia’s approach to stemming a growing high-tech problem.

58|

Steventon Bridge: overcoming the obstacle Peter Stanton investigates how Atkins developed a solution to an insurmountable problem.

44|

Signalling failures When “trains are delayed because of a signalling failure” what does it mean?

62|

Innovating for resilience Nick King, head of Network Rail’s Network Services, explains how innovation will help the railway become resilient.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

13 TH INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE EXHIBITION

OLYMPIA GRAND, LONDON, UK

CONNECTING THE INDUSTRY

12 - 14 MAY 2020

The full scope of infrastructure sectors on display, including: Track construction and maintenance Signalling Communication and passenger information Measuring, monitoring and testing systems Station equipment

Tel: +44 (0)1727 814 400 infrarail@mackbrooks.co.uk

FRE E* ONL IN

REG E VISI TO IS NOW TRATIO R OPE N N

Register to attend at:

www.infrarail.com

*On-site Registration £20

EDITORIAL

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

Getting net zero done

The UN Climate Change Conference, to be held in Glasgow in November, will be attended by over 30,000 delegates and 200 heads of state and shall be the largest summit that the UK has ever hosted. Britain’s hosting of this conference is due to its environmental credentials, which include reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 44 per cent since 1990 and setting a net-zero carbon by 2050 target.

This target was set after a net zero report by the Committee for Climate Change (CCC) explained how it could be achieved.

Yet little is heard of the CCC report or its recommendations, which included the need for all government departments to have strong emissions reductions policies.

An unfortunate example of this lack of an emissions policy is the DfT’s Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline document, which doesn’t mention carbon nor consider it to be an investment priority. Moreover, whilst the CCC report recommends extensive electrification, there are just 24 route kilometres of electrification enhancement schemes in this pipeline document.

This compares with 4,250 route kilometres that the rail industry’s Final Report to the Rail Minister on Decarbonisation, published by the Rail Industry Decarbonisation Taskforce and RSSB, states may be necessary for rail to achieve zero carbon. Yet even this report does not emphasise the need for such large-scale electrification until this figure is mentioned on page 34. Instead, it concluded that a judicious mix of electrification, battery and hydrogen technology was required to achieve net zero and referred to a further Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy study which will quantify the amount of electrification required. This strategy is due to be finalised in October, over two and a half years since the decarbonisation report was commissioned.

Although a detailed study of decarbonisation options is required, it should not take this

long to decide immediate electrification requirements. This is an urgent issue as, unless further electrification is authorised soon, experienced teams will be disbanded with resultant cost increases for future programmes.

This month’s magazine considers the traction mix needed to achieve net zero and concludes that the amount of electrification required would require a 30-year electrification rolling programme of about 150 route kilometres a year. This is similar to the figure in the decarbonisation report. Our study also assessed traffic carried by each traction type to determine their contribution to emissions reductions. This shows that, for a net-zero railway, electrification must make the greatest contribution, hydrogen will provide some reductions and batteries offer only a minor role.

We explain why only alternatives to such large-scale electrification are accepting the performance penalties of hydrogen traction for services requiring high traction power or retaining diesels with little further rail decarbonisation. This is because electric trains offer the only zero carbon transport for freight, mass transit and high-speed passenger flows. Hence, of all transport sectors, rail decarbonisation is the most straightforward.

Of course, it is not just trains for which carbon reductions are required. For construction plant, recent developments in battery technology offer significant potential for decarbonisation as Nigel Wordsworth describes. Delivering electrification in a cost-effective manner is essential if it is to be affordable. As Peter Stanton describes, computer modelling and empirical trials have increased the permissible OLE gradient at Steventon bridge. This potentially eliminates the need for future bridge reconstructions.

Reliability is one of the many advantages offered by electric trains. Although new trains are generally more reliable, their introduction can be problematic. Malcolm Dobell explains

why in his report on a recent IMechE Railway Division seminar on introducing new train fleets.

The reliability of the half million assets that comprise Network Rail’s signalling system is the subject of Paul Darlington’s feature, which offers a back-to-basics explanation of signalling and explains why its reliability is improving. Another feature describes cybersecurity measures to protect data and prevent malicious attacks on signalling and other systems. Precautions against hacking are also considered by Alex Stewart in his feature on the use of data and digital services to offer passengers seamless end-to-end journeys.

We also feature various innovations for infrastructure work. Grahame Taylor describes the many benefits offered by TIGER, a permanent way works management system that uses iPads instead of paper. He also reports on an innovative kit conversion that has produced a machine that can travel by rail and caterpillar track and uses mining industry techniques to transfer spoil away from excavations. Adapting kit for challenging jobs is also the subject of Graeme Bickerdike’s report which explains how rock drills were positioned at inaccessible locations up to 21 metres above track level in the deep approach cuttings to Pembroke tunnel.

Applying new technologies and processes to help build a more resilient railway is considered by Nick King, Network Rail’s director of Network Services. As he makes clear, the railway must face the threat of climate change.

It is to be hoped that Britain will present credible plans to meet this challenge at the UN climate change conference in November and that these will include a rolling railway electrification DAVID programme.

SHIRRES

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

5

6

THE TEAM

NEWS

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.co.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.co.uk

Production and design Adam O’Connor

Infrarail

adam@rail-media.com Matthew Stokes matt@rail-media.com

Engineering writers bob.wright@railengineer.co.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.co.uk

Meet your perfect match at UK's premier rail infrastructure showcase.

http://rail.media/REYouTube

A new high-profile networking space will be coming to Infrarail 2020, the 13th edition of the international railway infrastructure exhibition, returning to London this May 12th to 14th.

Infrarail Matchmaking is an official one-to-one business networking service that will enable registered users to search and connect with new and existing business contacts, manage event schedules and arrange meetings on exhibitor stands and in a new, dedicated matchmaking lounge.

Anyone who registers will be able to access their profile online and search for connections by their interests, sectors, products, services and geographic location.

Historically, Infrarail has been the industry’s favoured meeting place for key decision makers, government bodies and buyers, managers, project leaders and engineers active in the supply chain.

Visitors will be in attendance from around the world with hundreds of organisations anticipated to be exhibiting from countries across the globe, including Austria, Italy, Netherlands and Spain to name a few.

Natig Asadullaev, exhibition manager for Infrarail, said: “Our new complementary matchmaking service is the perfect way to make valuable leads with new and existing contacts. The programme will provide free access to our dedicated matchmaking team and onsite meeting concierge, making planning meetings and networking a simple and hassle-free process. » “Infrarail Matchmaking’s personal planner also allows you to pre-book meetings to suit you and your colleagues’ show schedule. At such an important time on the UK’s rail network, Infrarail 2020 is the essential meeting place for the industry’s biggest names. Anyone with an interest in the railway infrastructure market should be in attendance at Olympia London this May.”

Editorial copy to

To find out more about Infrarail 2020, or to make a stand reservation, visit ww.infrarail.com

collin.carr@railengineer.co.uk david.bickell@railengineer.co.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.co.uk grahame.taylor@railengineer.co.uk lesley.brown@railengineer.co.uk malcolm.dobell@railengineer.co.uk mark.phillips@railengineer.co.uk paul.darlington@railengineer.co.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.co.uk stuart.marsh@railengineer.co.uk

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Craig Smith craig@rail-media.com

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.co.uk

Rail Engineer Videos

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 182 | March 2020

NEWS

HS2 to proceed - but with organisational changes February was a busy month for HS2-watchers.

The long-awaited Oakervee report was finally published on 11 February after it was delayed by the general election. It recommended that, on balance, Ministers should proceed with the HS2 project, subject to various qualifications.

Oakervee was asked to cover a lot of ground, including such fundamental topics as the case for high speed rail as part of the GB rail network, how it linked with other transport schemes, and design and specification of the project.

Unsurprisingly, the result was a lengthy document, running to 130 pages. Given only three months to report, Oakervee had to take some shortcuts, basing costings on new chairman Allan Cook’s ‘Stocktake’ of 3 September. However, the report was thorough despite that and the Review’s overall conclusion was: “The latest economic appraisal indicates that the net cost to the transport budget in proceeding with HS2 is around £62 to £69 billion (present values, 2015 prices). In providing its view to government, the Review considers that, on balance, Ministers should proceed with the HS2 project, subject to the following conclusions and a number of qualifications.”

There are 62 conclusions, the final one of which was: “The Review strongly advises against cancelling the scheme.”

Later that same day, Prime Minister Boris Johnson stood in the House of Commons and declared: “The Cabinet has given high speed rail the green signal. We are going to get this done.”

However, it wasn’t quite so clear-cut as it might have been. The Prime Minister criticised the management of the project to date. “When it comes to advocating HS2, it must be said that the task is not made easier by HS2 Ltd - the company concerned,” he stated. “Speaking as an MP whose constituency is on the route, I cannot say that HS2 Ltd has distinguished itself in the handling of local communities. As everybody knows, the cost forecasts have exploded.”

Despite this, he planned to go ahead with the project as it was as much about connectivity in the Midlands and the North as about fast journey times between London and Birmingham.

But some things will change. “I will be appointing a Minister whose full-time job will be to oversee the project. A new Ministerial oversight group will be tasked with taking strategic decisions about it. There will be changes to the way HS2 is managed,” he continued. That minister will be Andrew Stephenson MP. Then he added: “So that the company

1

can focus solely on getting phases 1 and 2A built on something approaching on time and on budget, I will be creating new delivery arrangements for both the grossly behindschedule Euston terminus, and phase 2B of the wider project.”

So, what of the future of the HS2 organisation?

A little clarity emerged on 21 February when the Department for Transport (DfT) announced that it is working on an integrated rail plan for the Midlands and the North.

Working with HS2 Ltd and local leaders, and informed by an assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), the DfT will draw up an integrated rail plan for the Midlands and the North as recommended

by Oakervee. It will also proceed with the legislation that is needed to allow for the development of Phase 2b’s Manchester leg, so long as it does not prejudge any recommendations or decisions that will be taken in this plan.

The announcement pointed out that legislation for Phase 2b can be put through Parliament in two or more hybrid bills, which may run concurrently.

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) will now conduct a review of the lessons that can be learned from HS2 Phases 1 and 2a and that can be applied to Phase 2b as part of the integrated rail plan, which should be published by the end of the year.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

7

8

NEWS

Alstom looks to take over Bombardier Transportation

PHOTO: BOMBARDIER

On 17 February, Alstom announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Bombardier Inc. and its shareholder Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) with the view of acquiring Bombarder Transportation.

The price for the acquisition of 100 per cent of Bombardier Transportation shares would be €5.8 to €6.2 billion, to be paid by a mix of cash and new Alstom shares. CDPQ will reinvest around €2 billion and further invest €0.7 billion in Alstom, which Alstom claimed would confirm CDPQ’s strong belief in the strategic rationale and value-creation potential of the combination.

For its part, CDPQ stated that, with this transaction, it would become the largest shareholder of the new Alstom, with a stake of around 18 per cent in the company, depending on financing and closing conditions. As such, CDPQ would appoint two representatives to sit on the company’s Board of Directors as well as a Board observer.

Bouygues is set to remain an important shareholder of Alstom, with around 10 per cent of capital. It is fully supportive of the transaction and undertook to vote in favour of the transaction-related resolutions at the Emergency General Meeting.

Henri Poupart-Lafarge, chairman and CEO of Alstom, spoke as though the takeover was already a done deal. “I’m very proud to announce the acquisition of Bombardier Transportation, which is a unique opportunity to strengthen our global position on the booming mobility market,” he said. “This acquisition will improve our global reach and our ability to respond to the ever-

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

increasing need for sustainable mobility.

Bombardier Transportation will bring to Alstom complementary geographical presence and industrial footprint in growing markets, as well as additional technological platforms. It will significantly increase our innovation capabilities to lead smart and green innovation. We will be thrilled to welcome all the talent and energy of Bombardier Transportation employees.”

However, an agreement to combine Alstom with Siemens Mobility in 2018 was later stymied by the European Commission due to competition concerns and the possibility that the merger would have resulted “in higher prices for the signalling systems that keep passengers safe and for the next generations of very high speed trains”. The new deal will have to go before those same competition policy commissioners, although, as it is a takeover by Alstom rather than a merger, the situation is slightly different.

Alstom’s ambition to combine with one of the other major players in the market seems to be an indication that it is looking over its shoulder at competition from China’s CRRC and feels it needs to grow to compete.

Bombardier is strong in markets where Alstom is not - China and Mexico for example. It also brings new technologies, such as the monorail that is in use in São Paolo and has been chosen for Egypt. Interestingly, Bombardier has also received an order for a Chinese

monorail system in Wuhu City, which it will supply through its joint venture with CRRC! The combined Alstom/Bombardier operation will have an orderbook of some €75 billion, which will give it a strong global position.

Whether this takeover will happen is now down to the market competition authorities.

NEWS

Huddersfield's IRR awarded a Queen's Anniversary Prize IRR director Professor Simon Iwnicki and the University's Vice-Chancellor Professor Bob Cryan were invited to Buckingham Palace to be officially presented with the Royal award.

A team of researchers and engineers at the University of Huddersfield’s Institute of Railway Research (IRR) has been awarded one of the most coveted honours in Higher Education, conferred after scrutiny by the Prime Minister and approval from Her Majesty the Queen.

The IRR’s director, Professor Simon Iwnicki, and the University of Huddersfield’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Bob Cryan, received the award from HRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

Queen’s Anniversary Prizes are part of the UK’s honours system but are awarded to institutions rather than individuals. They were first presented in 1993 in order to recognise universities and colleges that had carried out ground-breaking pioneering research in a wide range of disciplines. In 2015, the University of Huddersfield received a prize for its world-class research in the field of new music.

The prizes are awarded after highly detailed submissions are assessed in an independent review process that takes several months and involves a wide range of consultations with experts. A shortlist is drawn up and discussed by the Awards Council of the Royal Anniversary Trust.

Finally, a list of recommended institutions is presented to HM The Queen for approval, on the Prime Minister’s advice.

The Institute of Railway Research, led by Professor Iwnicki, relocated to the University of Huddersfield from Manchester seven years ago.

Since then, the Institute has trebled in size as it has built up a worldwide reputation for its research into the interaction between railway vehicles and the track. This work has attracted major investments in world-class equipment.

For example, at the start of 2019, the Centre of Excellence in Rolling Stock was officially launched at the Institute, sharing in £90 million of funding, distributed among three Centres of Excellence, from the Government and from the private industry by the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN).

One of the outcomes is the construction of a world-class, £3.5 million pantograph testing rig, soon to come into use.

Industry calls for a rolling programme of electrification Representative bodies covering businesses, passengers, freight, and community groups have published an open letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, calling for him to kick-start an ambitious "rolling programme" of rail electrification, if the Government wants to deliver on its aim of decarbonising UK rail by 2040.

Written by the Campaign for Better Transport, the Campaign to Electrify Britain’s Railways, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA), the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA), the Northern Rail Industry Leaders (NRIL), the Rail Freight Group (RFG), Rail Forum Midlands (RFM) and the Railway Industry Association (RIA), the letter calls on the government to act before current electrification schemes are completed after which - without other schemes to move on to - many skills and expertise will be lost.

“In February 2018, the Government set a challenge to industry to see how it could take diesel-only trains off the railways,” the letter explains. “As the industry’s Decarbonisation Taskforce found, this will require a rolling programme of electrification for intensively used lines, and for regional and rural lines the development of new technologies such as hydrogen, battery and the use of clean bi-mode and tri-mode trains, which the industry is ready to deliver.

Calling this “a critical time for rail electrification”, the signatories continue: “As the Railway Industry Association’s (RIA) Electrification Cost Challenge Report shows, the stop-start nature of electrification is one of the key factors in cost increases. With a long-term rolling

programme, that provides visibility and consistency to rail suppliers so they can build up and retain expertise, electrification could be delivered at up to half the cost of past projects. We believe delivery of electrification cannot wait until the next rail funding cycle ‘Control Period 7’, which starts in 2024, and that a ringfenced fund for an electrification programme should be provided immediately to allow work to continue.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

9

10

FEATURE

The deep cutting at the south end of Pembroke Tunnel is surrounded by housing.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

FEATURE

RE ACH OUT OF

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Y

ou’ve got to start somewhere. Such were the timescales involved in delivering it, there was a clear logic behind engineer James Mathias’ choice of turning the first sods of the Pembroke & Tenby Railway at either end of its greatest engineering enterprise - a tunnel of 480 yards under Golden Hill, on the line’s approach to its terminus at Pembroke Docks.

Whilst miners drove headings to create a pilot tunnel, others were engaged on the mammoth task of excavating the approach cuttings. This was 1863 - no plant, no machinery just hand drills, explosives and elbow grease. And yet 500 tons of arisings were despatched daily to form an embankment further down the line.

Just pause for a moment to consider those logistics in an era when bulk haulage involved horse power in its purest sense.

The miners’ efforts fractured the porous Welsh sandstone through which the railway was laid. So it’s only to be expected that 150+ wet winters later, the accompanying freeze-thaw action - aided by the odd badger - will have loosened rock in the approach cuttings and caused pieces to dislodge periodically. One of these weighed 400kg.

Dealing with such fall hazards is part and parcel of the railway’s routine asset management regime. In the cutting at the tunnel’s south end, the accompanying obligations recently prompted a 19-day blockade to facilitate the installation of stainless steel netting and more than 1,200 rock bolts.

Sound asleep The project first appeared on the radar of Alun Griffiths (Contractors), holder of a Geotechnical framework for Network Rail’s Wales & Western Region, in the summer of 2016 when its workforce spent 16 weeks deveging the site. The work revealed the soil mantle to be deep whilst the underlying rock was soft and weathered, insight which helped an in-house team from Network Rail to develop the design for a stabilisation project.

At this time, a housing development was springing up on land to the north and west of the cutting, a constraint which influenced the delivery approach for the main scheme. Although the hours available were comparatively generous, the option of using Rules of the Route possessions was soon dismissed as this would have involved 26 weeks of overnight working, imposing intolerable disruption and disturbance on lineside neighbours as a consequence of the noise and light pollution. The inefficiencies were also apparent.

Instead, a blockade was agreed between Whitland Junction and Pembroke Dock, closing the singletrack branch for 19 days from 23:00hrs on Sunday 19 January through to 05:45hrs on Saturday 8 February. This allowed the drilling to be restricted to the period between 07:00hrs and 23:00hrs, with only the bolts, grout and netting put in overnight. Buses replaced trains on the route to the west of Carmarthen, although services to Fishguard Harbour and Milford Haven continued to stop at Whitland.

ALL PHOTOS: © FOUR BY THREE

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

11

12

FEATURE

More than 1,200 rock bolts and 3,700m2 of steel netting were installed during the 19-day blockade.

Alongside the Pembroke work, the blockade facilitated vegetation management activities along several stretches of line. Amongst these was another Griffiths site encompassing 570 linear yards at either end of Narbeth Tunnel, the felled timber from which went to fuel a local biomass power plant. There was also track replacement work and geotechnical surveys of some earthworks and foundations.

The methodology manual Rock drilling on the higher part of a slope comes with obvious challenges.

Historically, rope access teams would use a skid rig - effectively a sledge with a drill mounted to it which would be lowered down the bank on cables anchored at the crest, with the workforce man-handling it into the desired position assisted by winches or tirfor rigs.

The drilling itself was carried out by hand - using kit much like a jack hammer - bringing considerable implications

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

around HAVS (Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome). So acute was the potential impact that each man was typically limited to 20 minutes per day on the drill.

Except ‘historically’ is not the right word here - some contractors still use these methods. But not so Griffiths.

In 2017, it made a commitment to bring the work in-house, buying two Ripamonti drills and mounting them on road-rail excavators sourced from Total Rail Solutions, their plant supplier.

As well as bringing huge efficiency improvements, almost all hand-drilling has been eliminated. The past two-anda-half years has seen around 12,000 rock bolts installed by the firm as part of several schemes across Wales and the south-west; more than 99 per cent of these have been achieved through mechanised means. The workforce health benefits cannot be overstated.

Taking the strain At Pembroke, Network Rail’s design required the installation of 1,154 stainless steel rock bolts, typically in an offset diamond pattern at two-metre centres, as well as 68 spot bolts at identified

01962 711642

THE RIGHT RAIL SOLUTIONS FOR YOU

TRS PROVIDES OPERATED AND NON-OPERATED ROAD-RAIL PLANT, SUB-CONTRACTING SERVICES AND LABOUR PROVISION TO RAIL SITES ACROSS THE UK.

totalrailsolutions.co.uk

info@totalrailsolutions.co.uk

14

FEATURE

vulnerable locations. Each was between 2.5 and 3 metres in length. Additionally, around 3,700m2 of 3mm diameter steel netting had to be fitted, together with spike plates and associated components. The system actively holds the rock in place; the alternative - a passive system - has bolts at the top and bottom, and only contains the rock pieces as they fall.

Delivering the programme within the available time window relied on meticulous planning and the collaborative relationship Griffiths enjoys with Total Rail Solutions.

Deployed on site were five machines fitted with Ripamonte EX170TH/THV drills: a 13-tonne excavator with nine metres of reach and a 36-tonne excavator with 20 metres of reach worked above the tunnel portal and along the west-side crest, whilst on-track were two Doosan 270 RRVs, one with a purpose-built 10-metre dipper arm offering 19 metres of reach, and the other with a 5-metre dipper arm and 11 metres of reach.

It was possible to install around 92% of the bolts using these four machines. The remainder - numbering about 100 - were located towards the top of the east-side cutting slope, the crest of which was inaccessible to plant due to adjacent properties. So there were two options here - reverting to manual means or developing an innovative solution involving a different machine. Enter Total Rail Solutions.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Rock drilling at the upper part of the east-side slope involved a 30-metre crane provided by Total Rail Solutions.

Joining forces In the latter half of 2019, Total Rail Solutions’ fleet was boosted by the arrival of a new piece of kit - the UK’s first Sennebogen 643 crane with its 30-metre telescopic boom. It offers enhanced opportunities for the firm’s rail clients, with a 40-tonne lifting capacity and 24-metre maximum radius. But where this machine really scores over its competitors is the ability to fit attachments to the boom, a feature which offered a potential means of overcoming the issue Griffiths faced at Pembroke.

By evaluating the technical specification of the Ripamonte drill against the capabilities of the crane under the relevant operating conditions, it was determined that the drilling requirements

for the upper two rows of bolts - between 16 and 21 metres above track level - could be fulfilled. Beyond this, site visits were undertaken to ensure the machine’s swept envelope would not conflict with any railway furniture such as signage, signal posts or drainage catchpits.

GOS Tool & Engineering Services, who have a positive track-record of converting machinery for rail use, were engaged to engineer the bespoke high-spec adaptor between the crane and drill.

It was designed and fabricated within a week, including the need to modify the hydraulics on the machine to divert high-pressure oil to the end of the boom to drive the drill. A three-day period of testing followed before the assembled kit was taken to Pembroke.

16

FEATURE Learning lessons Understandably, as this was a first for the UK and therefore a new experience for both Total Rail Solutions and Griffiths, the approach taken to the crane’s initial use was cautionary. Moving it took longer than the conventional RRVs as it’s stabilised by jacks, but that reflects the unique nature of the role it was taking on. Confidence grew as the methodology proved itself.

Mention must be made of the crew working with and alongside the crane whose skills and collaborative effort were equally important as its mechanical capabilities, effectively controlling exclusion zones and recognising the manoeuvrability limitations within a constrained worksite.

“From our point of view, the project went very well”, reflects Paul Clancy from Total Rail Solutions. “We were there to do the out-of-reach holes that the other machines couldn’t do and we did them 100% without issue.”

Overall, the project asked many questions of the Griffiths team, confronted by difficult terrain, the impacts of prolonged wet weather and the close proximity of housing. This was a job very much within the community. A workforce of 130 - mostly from Wales - contributed to its successful delivery, working 24/7 and clocking up more than 16,000 man hours.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Jackie and Nyree kept them fuelled with hot food on demand, whilst seven local guest houses - normally closed through the winter - benefited from unexpected income.

And as for the outcome? “We have exceeded our expectations by successfully delivering all 1,154 bolts, some 24 hours ahead of the planned programme and installed 3,700m2 of mesh”, Jason Shannon, Griffiths’ Contracts Manager, makes clear.

You can’t say fairer than that.

Alun Griffiths (Contractors) used two of its own RRVs, including one with a bespoke 10-metre dipper arm.

All the drilling work was carried out by mechanised means, eliminating all issues around HAVS.

Delivering sustainably for over 45 years Griffiths is an award-winning multi-disciplinary Framework Contractor, delivering strategic civils and infrastructure improvements for Network Rail, government and local authorities.

We operate out of key strategic locations in North, West, South East Wales, Borders and West of England.

• We are a Full Principal Contractor Licence holder with Network Rail

• Our rail expertise is in civil engineering, buildings/enhancements and permanent way

• We sustainably employ a local workforce of over 800 people •

Our in-house plant fleet provides high quality resources with the flexibility to react to our Clients’ needs

• We provide a 24/7 on-call service for emergency rail work As a CP6 Framework Contractor, we look forward to delivering infrastructure improvements sustainably with Network Rail.

@AlunGriffiths_

Contact our Rail Division on

01873 857211 enquiries@alungriffiths.co.uk www.alungriffiths.co.uk

FEATURE

UN F TH OR THE IN KA BL E

ALL PHOTOS: NETWORK RAIL

PL AN NI NG

18

POLLY RIVERS

Liability becomes a problem when workers on the same site have different employers.

Working at night creates its own hazards.

W

orking on the rails is a risky business. Risk is a funny thing though. It must be taken in context, and fully understood, in order to make a judgement on how properly to insure a situation. If you said to a postman: “Would you be happy going about your day with a stock of explosives in your bag?” the answer would likely be a resounding “No!” However, for many rail workers, stocking up with detonators before a shift is par for the course, and no more unusual than having a digestive with their tea.

“When planning an insurance programme for a rail client, understanding the risks involved, and steps taken to manage those risks day-to-day is essential. Being able to communicate it up-chain to an underwriter who doesn’t have an in-depth understanding of these things is key to making sure that the cover is right and the premiums are competitive,” explained Keven Parker, director of Jobson James Rail, specialist rail insurance brokers.

With over 240 rail clients - including trackside contractors, labour suppliers, plant hire, rolling stock, civils and signalling - the team at Jobson James has a wide view of the market, and a clear understanding of the ins and outs of railway insurance. “As insurance brokers specialising in the rail sector, if there’s two things we understand, it’s risk and railways,” added Parker with a smile.

But how complex, exactly, is buying insurance? Isn’t it just a case of negotiating the premium?

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Collaboration and contractual liability Nowhere is a knowledge of how the rail sector works more important than when it comes to understanding the allocation of liabilities. In most industries, it is very clear to see where responsibility lies when it comes to processing an insurance claim. If an employee in an office tripped and fell due to, for example, a photocopier cable trailing across the walkway, then it would be a clear case of a claim against the owners of the business on their employer’s liability insurance.

FEATURE However, in the rail sector, things aren’t so clear cut. Although it’s an industry built on collaboration, there will be incidents where more than one organisation crosses paths, and there will be disagreement over who is liable and who must pay. These contract conditions can muddy the waters and interfere with the way a court looks at an accident and decides where liability lies.

“We are experts in labour supply contracts and we know how courts will look at the circumstances of serious injury claims,” Keven Parker explained. “Often, the labour agency may find themselves liable and their insurance may not have been on the correct basis and all contractual terms that they signed correctly disclosed to the insurers. Where the costs of serious injury claims can run into millions, the stakes are very high to make sure we get the cover right.”

“Despite the labour agency having no direct control over risk management, health and safety procedures and planning, supervision or direction on the site, as they are, in effect, the employer, they can get dragged into the claim, with lawyers poring over contractual details.

“Busy worksites, staffed by multiple teams supplied by different agencies, are not uncommon and this complicates the situation even further.”

Men, women and machines Labour agencies and principle contractors aren’t the only collaborative relationship within the industry to tussle over insurances. With a typical value of over £250,000 per machine, it is no surprise that insurance is an important consideration in the RRV (road-rail vehicle) world.

However, insuring a piece of on-track-plant isn’t quite as simple as renewing your annual cover for the family saloon.

“We also have detailed knowledge of RRV hire terms and we have developed our insurance products to be bespoke to the needs of the RRV owner and operator, so that much wider policy

Workers from different labour supply companies often have to work in close proximity.

www.jjrail.co.uk

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@jjrail.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 Birmingham, London and around the country.

Jobson James Rail is a trading name of Aston Lark Limited.

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

JobsonJames_Advert_01.12.2015_B_Amended.indd 2

15/12/2015 10:33 Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

19

20

FEATURE

(Above) Working with heavy plant carries its own risks.

(Inset) Railway work sites are often complicated and hazardous places.

A CAUTIONARY TALE One licenced train operator had an accident with a Network Rail MPV (multi-purpose vehicle) that it was operating.

Unfortunately, on one occasion, the MPV had an accident and caused damage to some rail infrastructure. The operator’s policy paid for the damage to the infrastructure, but not the damage to MPV. Their broker hadn’t understood how the exclusions would be interpreted in a rail environment. There was damage to the MPV of about £200,000, which the company had to pay itself.

cover is provided (versus general construction plant) to recognise the unique nuances of the RRV industry,” Keven clarified.

But what of the individuals in this story?

Much of the orange army is made up of selfemployed individuals, with many of them being incorporated as their own limited company, so insurance is a consideration here too.

“We have to be experts in all of these things,” Keven stated, “and, working closely with the client to build up a detailed picture of their contractual liability up and down the contractual chain, we can then present the client to our insurers to elicit the best price and widest cover.

“Over the years, our rail clients initially came to us to get a lower price, but, over time, they stayed with us because they get a year of advice rather than an insurance traction. If they get into trouble with a site injury, then our in-house qualified barrister is on hand to give the right advice on the court process and investigation.”

Premiums and exclusions With so many elements to consider, managing insurance in the rail sector properly is a complex task. However, many railway companies still engage with general brokers, who do not have any rail contractual knowledge. Often it may be a long-standing personal relationship with a broker that looks after their home, family, car etc insurance policies.

“At Jobson James, we are rail specialists, so we fully understand the risks involved in the sector,” Keven explained. “Where we begin a relationship with a new client, and they have used a general broker in the past, we usually uncover mistakes made in the way the

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

insurance contracts have been placed because the broker has no knowledge of rail contractual liabilities that are typical in the industry and they typically lump rail organisations in with general construction firms.”

“Additionally, a recent change in the law the Insurance Act 2015 - created a statutory obligation for every commercial business to provide material facts to their insurance company about the contracts they signed if those contracts interfered with insurer’s rights.

We ask lots of questions of our clients to cover their backs to ensure they do not have to worry about being in breach of the insurer’s requirements.

“We are always happy to work with any railway company, to help them to understand what they are signing up to in contracts. Our culture is to help railway business owners as much as we can and business will follow. We give people time, we sit with the owners and talk through their contracts face to face, we are all about people.

Our clients are buying our advice and we are passionate to help our clients understand the complexities of insurance in the rail sector, and provide them with the very best protection.”

The #1 choice when selecting a garment to keep you both protected and comfortable in the toughest of working environments

Photo Courtesy of @SEPRailServices

T: 01527 962012 | E: sales@pulsaruk.com | W: www.pulsaruk.com @PULSARHIVIS

@PULSAR_UK

Pulsar UK

PULSAR

pulsar_uk

22

TECHNOLOGY

to

From

Awkward

Straightforward

GRAHAME TAYLOR

Rhomberg Sersa’s in-line excavator comes out of the mines to sort out the Railway’s ‘difficult list’ Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

TECHNOLOGY

I

magine, if you will, a single-track terminus platform. To one side is a platform surface with expensive block paving.

On the other side is a high boundary wall. Above are the overhead electrified lines.

Ahead are the buffer stops.

Underneath is an elderly piece of track with truly filthy ballast laced with everything that can descend from a passenger coach. Below that, well out of sight, are the drains linking the smart platform facilities with the outside world.

Now imagine that you have the task of removing the said unsavoury ballast and replacing it with nice new clean ballast.

A straightforward job? Well, in that this is not a novel scenario dreamt up as a test for aspiring engineers, it is a straightforward job - although not necessarily pleasant or one that can be achieved efficiently or cleanly.

Dozers, dumpers and people The conventional method would be to use a mixture of dozers, dumpers and 360° excavators - all of which will tramp up and down the narrow strip of way, and all of which are liable to nick the coping stones or to crush the hidden sewer.

The work will need two or three machines, maybe more,

with their movements carefully checked by staff on the ground trying to minimise the inevitable damage.

For old hands this may seem very familiar. Not much is achieved in the limited possession apart from oil/ grease/dust and other substances scattered on the otherwise pristine platform surface and a notice on the waiting room door that the toilets have now been closed until further notice.

Jobs like these are on the ‘difficult’ list. Perhaps the ballast will last just one more year until after retirement!

Other ‘difficult list’ contenders include renewals in single line tunnels, single lines with a narrow formation and island platforms.

From the mining industry There is hope, however.

Technology from the mining and quarry industry has come to the rescue, but it has taken some bold kit conversion for the transition from mine to rail.

A tunnel in a mine has all the same problems. That is, how is the spoil gathered up ahead and then discharged to the rear, all the time keeping both the materials and the machinery within the envelope of the tunnel? Tunnelling machines and mining machines have one thing in common. There is a conveyor belt taking the spoil through the machine and accessible to the means of excavation at the front.

The ITC has been used in mines all over the world. It, too, has a means of excavation at the front end of the machine and a conveyor belt that extends from front to rear.

The bucket of the excavator portion at the front gathers up spoil and loads it into a scoop assembly that is joined to an integral conveyor belt. The analogy is the dustpan and brush.

Everything that is placed on the conveyor is then taken through the machine to appear at the rear where it can be onward handled away. In a mine, there would be another conveyor belt to take the spoil the long distance back to the materials handling facility.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

23

24

TECHNOLOGY The overall system is fitted with comprehensive task lighting and dust suppression.

Large and sturdy piece of kit

The conveyor at the rear of the ITC BL4 discharges into the MFS+.

Road/rail conversion Rhomberg Sersa’s solution, the ITC BL4, which is RIS 1530 compliant and Network Rail Product approved, is an inline ballast-excavator with a custom-fitted Rototilt R6 15-24 tonne tiltrotator at the end of its jib. Just like its mining counterpart, it moves forwards and backwards on a pair of caterpillar tracks, which give an element of steerage for fine positioning.

For a rail excavation site, this may seem fine, except that access to the site may not be possible for a solely tracked machine. This has been solved in large part by the mounting of road/rail equipment to the chassis of the ITC BL4. The transition from rail to “in the hole” dig is via RRAP (Road Rail Access Point), for which a lightweight TAMS (Track Access Matting System) is preferred.

The power for the rail wheels and braking is taken from the Deutz six-cylinder diesel engine and is all hydraulic. Thus, the ITC BL4 can travel both by rail and by caterpillar track.

All equipment in line When the ITC BL4, running on its rail wheels, reaches the point at which the rails have been removed, the machine is able to lower its caterpillar tracks down to the ballast, lift itself off the rails and then walk itself towards the excavation area. Excavating ahead at rates of up to 100150 cubic metres per hour, the spoil is discharged to the rear

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

and into an MFS+ machine that has also walked off the end of the available track. (The MFS+ machine was detailed in issue 182, Jan/Feb 2020).

When full, the MFS+ moves back to a rake of MFS wagons that are parked at the end of the available track and completes the discharge. The MFS+ has a 40 to 60-tonne load capacity and so the discharge quantities are by no means insignificant. With the discharge to the rake of MFS wagons complete, the MFS+ returns for further loading.

There are just two items of Machine Group plant on the site at one time, perhaps supported by a generalpurpose dozer, all of which have low ground pressure tracks.

Neither of them have any need to deviate from the envelope of the platform line and so can operate without damage to structures or services beside, overhead or beneath the formation. Any operatives that need to clear spoil from awkward niches are all within plain sight of the ITC operator.

The logistics of getting an ITC BL4 to site are straightforward.

Weighing in at just under 40 tonnes, it is road-borne for any long distances between sites.

It is a large and sturdy piece of kit, especially when it is out of its native environment, having a nominal length of 18 metres and width of 2.23 metres, but it is still transportable without special loads notices. For maintenance and inspection, it does not need to be stabled on a rail site, which frees it from occupying valuable track space or from being trapped-in by other plant.

The ITC is not limited by distance when running on rail wheels, but it has to run under possession to its worksite - at speeds of up to 8mph. Once on its caterpillar tracks, it can progress at a stately 2.3 mph.

Unlike dedicated rail-mounted machinery, it is able to move itself out of the way once its task is complete. This removes the need for critical shunting operations, which can often be delayed in busy station layouts.

The Rhomberg Sersa System The ITC BL4 is a key part of the Rhomberg Sersa system. Excavation (the ITC), then initial transportation of spoil (the MFS+), temporary storage (MFS wagons) and finally discharge (the UMH). It is this latter machine that Rail Engineer magazine will describe in the next issue.

The ‘difficult list’ gets shorter.

The Rhomberg Sersa Machine Group – a unique and specialist in-line excavation and re-ballasting system 150m3 per hour

ITC BL4

EfďŹ cient Excavation of Single Bore Tunnels, Island Platforms and Single lines

High Capacity In-Line Road Rail Excavator

Up to 150m3 per hour

Continuous Output

The Rhomberg Sersa Machine Group is a unique and specialist in-line excavation and re-ballasting system that represents a step-change in track renewals in the UK. ITC BL4 The ITC BL4 is used to rapidly excavate bottom ballast on S&C and plain line renewal projects.

When combined with our MFS+ On Track machines and MFS 2000 wagons it can facilitate single bore tunnel and single line excavations with the future potential to be utilised for Adjacent Line Open operations.

The ITC BL4 eliminates the traditional renewal requirements for a spoil wagon train on the adjacent line and multiple On Track Plant within the excavation.

For more information on this or any other system, please contact us using the information below.

Bringing innovation and engineering excellence to the rail sector Rhomberg Sersa UK Ltd | T +44 (0)300 30 30 230 2 Sarah Court, Yorkshire Way, Doncaster, DN3 3FD www.rhomberg-sersa.com | enquiries@rsrg.com

26

TECHNOLOGY

ALEX STEWART

INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS

M

obility is changing. In everyday life, consumers want everything immediately and rely on high-speed communications to order goods and services and to access the most up-to-date information.

This equally applies to public transport passengers, who are now expecting a new suite of tools and services that will improve their journey experience, whatever mode of travel they choose to take. With the added consideration of environmental impact, and a resolve to help reduce individual and collective carbon output, public transport is once again centre stage.

Together, Siemens Mobility, HaCon, eos. uptrade and Bytemark have developed a unique and holistic collection of digital services and solutions that help to enhance the passenger experience.

The companies’ combined services range from trip planning and passenger communication to mobile ticketing, electronic payment and comprehensive Mobility as a Service (MaaS) solutions.

Systems are also available to support operators and infrastructure providers, including fleet management and train planning systems, as well as mobility data analytics.

The concept of MaaS, where a fully integrated multimodal transport system provides an attractive alternative to the individual use of private cars, will see customer experience driving the transport network.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Inteligent integration Already, significant changes have been introduced in the UK, not only to provide greater choice for passengers when planning a journey, but also, and more importantly, to make that information available where they want it and when they need it. Travel options such as the fastest or cheapest route, the most environmentally friendly route and even routes that take into account the weather, are all choices the traveller can make by using intermodal mobility solutions.

Siemens Mobility intelligently integrates the various transportation modes into a holistic ecosystem to effectively turn mobility entirely into a service.

With smartphones and apps no longer a luxury, but now an essential tool for people’s everyday lives, multimodal

travel is increasingly making use of digital technology. Whether using their own car, a rental car, a bike, bus or train, passengers can plan their fully connected and optimised journey from their doorstep right through to their final destination. This includes having access to information that guides passengers to their reserved seat on a train (or to a carriage that has seats available), providing up-to-date information on transfers and booking tickets.

Elements of these approaches have been successfully deployed in major European cities, such as Copenhagen and Hanover, where a quick check on a phone can give passengers information about, not only the fastest route, but the cheapest alternative mode of transport, updated in real-time and tailored to that individuals’ needs.

The infrastructure in our road and rail networks is also becoming increasingly intelligent and is already delivering valuable information and data, for example warning of delays due to congestion or late

TECHNOLOGY Check-in/Check-out, Be-in/Be-out

running, that can be bundled in just one app. For travellers, this means far greater knowledge, comfort and convenience and the greatest possible flexibility. All the various means of transport are evolving into a holistic ecosystem.

Secure connections With the advent of the Internet of Things, travellers can now securely connect devices and transportation modes that were separate in the past.

Transport operators collect valuable data, can replace hardware digitally, and can save time and money for maintenance because the devices themselves flag when they need to be serviced, so costly routine maintenance visits don’t have to be carried out unless there is a need.

In the past, operators communicated unilaterally with their customers via individual apps, but systems are increasingly being developed that enable passengers to pass relevant information back to the service provider. For example, Siemens Mobility’s solutions already offer the possibility of activating the red ‘stop’ button in the bus on an app, as well as displaying the entire travel route, including transfers and secure connections, on a smartphone.

With solutions such as HAFAS (HaCon Fahrplan-Auskunfts-System, or HaCon travel plan information desk system), Siemens Mobility and HaCon are ensuring that millions of passengers and transportation operators are informed about their optimal journey, including connections and modes of travel. App contents are becoming increasingly detailed, because the transport modes themselves, and their network infrastructure, have more and more sensors which are capable of delivering more data in real-time.

These sensors also include ‘beacons’, the data from which can, among other things, deliver information on passenger flows. So, train operators can, for example, direct passengers to available

seats, combining timetable information with capacity tracking data from each individual carriage. This is just one example of how integrating the growing volumes of data that is available from different service providers can provide real benefits to passengers and customers.

This ticket could also be part of an Account Based Service, combining the intermodal concept with Be-in/Be-out (or BiBo) ticketing that enables contactless recording of transport service use via an app on the user’s smartphone, with the user being billed exactly for the distance travelled.

Driving change Digitalisation provides a huge opportunity to drive change, with technologies that have the potential to radically change the way people think about transport.

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT), which covers the provision of trains, trams or buses in response to real-time passenger demand, is just one further example. Using a DRT solution from partners Padam, Siemens Mobility can help enable passengers from rural or badly serviced transport areas to travel to transport hubs, such as train stations and bus stations, for their onward travel. They can then be helped further by allowing them to speed through gates using

Under a Check-in/Check-out system, sometimes abbreviated to CiCo, travellers have to physically present a ticket or authority to board a vehicle and to exit. London Transport’s Oyster card is a good example – passengers have to tap in and out so that the price they are charged can be calculated.

If the station or vehicle gate can ‘read’ the travel authority while it is still in the passenger’s pocket, perhaps by interrogating a smartphone or other data tag, without the traveller having to do anything except walk through the gate, then that is Be-in/Be-out, otherwise known as BiBo. Hybrid systems also exist, such as CiBo, which can be used where ticket prices are not dependant on distance so only checking tickets at entry is important.

AirGate, a ‘frictionless’ Bluetooth ticketing system, without having to present their smartphone to a gate or post.

There is a clear appetite in the UK to continue to drive changes that will enhance the passenger experience and, with digitalisation, Siemens Mobility is enabling operators worldwide to make their infrastructure more intelligent and to enhance the passenger experience.

Within this, the company is increasingly focusing on its MaaS solutions, to not only enable the seamless integration of various transport modes, but also to make them as easy to use as possible, minimising any barriers that exist to easily switch between modes.

Alex Stewart is general manager, intermodal solutions for Siemens Mobility in the UK

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

27

28

TECHNOLOGY

DAVID SHIRRES

Getting electrification done

The net-zero imperative

O

n 24 June 2019, the House of Commons unanimously passed an amendment to the Climate Change Act that committed the UK to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Previously, the target

had been 80 per cent of UK’s 1990 emissions. This followed the report by the Committee for Climate Change (CCC) (issue 177, Aug/Sept 2019), which showed that net-zero carbon by 2050

The report contained no map or list of routes that made up these 4,250 kilometres of electrification. It seems that the first such map will not be available until July 2020, when Network Rail’s traction decarbonisation network strategy group is due to produce its interim report prior to its final report in October.

This will inform the Government’s decisions on electrification, battery and hydrogen traction.

was an achievable, though highly demanding, target.

Defining ‘intensively used’ The CCC report was published shortly before the rail industry decarbonisation taskforce finalised its report in July 2019.

This was initiated in February 2018 following Rail Minister Jo Johnston’s call for the rail industry to remove all diesel-only trains by 2040, leaving only diesel bi-mode trains. The final taskforce report concluded that diesel bi-mode trains could not be part of a permanent solution if the requirement is now to be net-zero. Yet the report noted that, until 2050, bi-mode trains will have a useful transitional role.

The decarbonisation report concluded that achieving net zero would require a mix of electrification, hydrogen and battery trains. It considered that achieving net zero may require 4,250 route kilometres of electrification and noted that “electric traction, where the line is sufficiently intensively used, provides the lowest whole-life carbon impact, and delivers services that are faster, more reliable, quieter and less polluting than diesel traction”. However, on less intensively used lines, the report concluded that electrification may not justify the investment cost.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

The amount of electrification required depends on the grey area between routes that are obviously intensively used and those with little traffic. To assess how much electrification is required, Rail Engineer considered the services in each table with unelectrified lines in the national rail timetable (NRT) to produce a spreadsheet. This contained the unelectrified route mileage, the stations between which electrification was required, hourly frequency, estimated number of coaches per train, whether there was a direct service to London, whether lines used by freight route and, finally, the type of service.

Service types were classified as either: branch line, commuter, cross country (long routes linking towns and small cities with one or two large cities), inter-city core routes (routes connecting London to large cities, NE/SW cross country services and transpennine), inter-city extensions (branches from core routes to locations that currently have a through service to London, also Scottish inter-city services), urban (in populated area with no major commuter flow) and rural.

29

TECHNOLOGY

Technical considerations

An important consideration is that electric trains offer the high speed and high acceleration needed to encourage a shift to rail from less carbon-friendly transport modes. It is likely that the carbon savings from such a modal shift would be of a similar magnitude to rail’s current carbon emissions.

The decarbonisation report considers that hydrogen trains are only suitable for shorter-distance self-powered trains with a maximum speed of 75mph. It also concludes that battery trains are only suitable for “short hops off wire”. However, this categorisation takes no account of the need for high acceleration, which is essential for commuter services.

Hydrogen trains are certainly a viable option for rural routes and may be developed to the stage where they are suitable for cross country and semi-intensive urban services. However, their capability will always be limited by energy storage constraints as, to store the same amount of energy, hydrogen tanks need to be seven times the volume of diesel tanks. This could reduce passenger capacity if hydrogen has to be stored within the train. For this reason, electric/hydrogen bi-modes are probably not a feasible option.

Battery-powered trains could operate shuttle services on short branch lines, where they could be charged during the layover period. However, the time required for charging may require extra trains to maintain the timetable. Batteries could be used for “short hops off wire” in battery/electric bi-mode trains, for which a 60-mile round trip was considered to be the maximum possible. Such hybrids could also be used on routes

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

PHOTO: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

In 2016-17, the total CO2 emissions from the diesel passenger train fleet and from freight locomotives were respectively 1.36 million tonnes and 0.55 million tonnes. Achieving net zero by 2050 requires the elimination of all diesel traction and, in some cases, carbon offsets.

The only zero-carbon traction options are electrification, hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) or batteries, provided that the electricity generation is carbon-free. This has already been achieved, as Network Rail procures all its rail-traction electricity from zero-carbon nuclear generation.

The power of electric trains is limited only by the current that can be drawn through their pantographs. For this reason, electric trains are the only form of transport that can move heavy freight or passengers at high speed with zerocarbon emissions. The decarbonisation report considers that electrification is the only alternative to diesel-hauled freight, which accounts for 29 per cent of rail traction emissions.

A National Infrastructure Commission report noted that only 13 per cent of freight is hauled by electric locomotives. This report concluded that electrifying 515 kilometres of key freight routes would enable nearly two-thirds of freight services to be electrically hauled. As it is not feasible to electrify all freight routes, there will always be some diesel-hauled freight and engineering trains. Emissions from such trains would require carbon-offset measures, such as tree planting, if rail traction is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

30 PHOTO: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

TECHNOLOGY

with significant electrification challenges, such as the Welsh Valley services, for which discontinuous electrification may be appropriate as the only trains are a dedicated fleet.

The decarbonisation report proposed that battery trains could facilitate discontinuous electrification. However, there are many reasons why there seems to be no discontinuous electrification on mainline railways outside the UK. These include the cost of transmitting power across the break in the contact wire and arrangements to ensure pantographs are lowered. Moreover, recent initiatives, such as surge arresters, can eliminate bridge reconstructions and reduce the need to consider discontinuous electrification.

The logistics and economics of operating a small proportion of battery or hydrogen trains in an otherwise largely electric train fleet also needs to be considered.

In the long-term, unelectrified branch lines within electrified areas are unlikely to be the optimum solution, as such lines could be electrified at low cost as part of a rolling programme, especially if these are low-speed lines. As hydrogen trains require specialist facilities, a small fleet of hydrogen trains may not be justifiable in areas of significant electrification.

Battery trains are a potentially useful decarbonisation transition technology.

However, their long-term viability depends on battery costs, which could become unacceptable as demand for batteries increases with worldwide decarbonisation initiatives.

Electrification mileage required Considering the above, each nonelectrified line in the NRT was assessed to determine its priority for electrification as shown below: » Definite - high-priority intensively used services comprising core inter-city services, commuter services and freight

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

routes, inter-city extensions that provide through services to London (except for short hops for which battery/electric bimodes might be feasible), cross-country services through populated areas, other freight routes, urban services in densely populated areas; » Possible further electrification - remote cross-country services, inter-city extensions with infrequent service not suitable for battery power, other urban services, hourly rural services in reasonably populated areas; » Unlikely but possible - high-mileage inter-city extension with alternative route, little-used rural routes that feed into main lines or are close to population centres; » Never - remote rural routes through sparsely populated areas which could be operated by hydrogen trains; » Battery trains - suitable for operation by trains that are either hybrid batteryelectric trains which charge their batteries whilst operating on the electrified network or have batteries charged at either end of the line during their layover.

The resultant estimate of electrification required by category and route type is shown in the map and table 1. It is noteworthy that the 4,327 route

kilometres of definitely required electrification is almost identical to the 4,250 kilometres figure in the decarbonisation report.

The definite electrification requirement was that which eliminates diesel traction whilst maintaining train performance.

It is not possible to state how much electrification will eventually be required, due to many current unknowns. These include the future cost of electrification, the eventual capabilities and costs of battery and hydrogen traction and the extent to which Treasury investmentappraisal rules value carbon savings.

For this reason, the analysis considered further possible and unlikely electrification scenarios.

It concluded that the route kilometres of electrification required under ‘definite’, ‘possible’ and ‘unlikely’ scenarios would be respectively 4,327 km, 5.993 km and 7,029 km. It concluded that electrification could never be justified for 1,401 route kilometres of the network.

Increasing the electrified network by 4,327 route kilometres by 2050 under the ‘definite’ scenario would require a rolling programme of around 144 route kilometres a year, which is about 50 per cent more than the delivery rate of the previous ten years.

TECHNOLOGY

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

31

32

TECHNOLOGY

The traffic metric

Who pays?

It is important to assess the relative contribution of electrification, hydrogen and batteries which, for passenger services, is broadly proportional to the traffic carried. This was estimated from an assumed number of coaches on each service, the service frequency shown in the timetable and considering the service operates 17 hours a day, 363 days a year, to estimate the annual vehicle mileage for each type of traffic as shown in table 2.

This relates to traffic on currently unelectrified lines which is broadly 27 per cent of all traffic, given that 73 per cent of the passenger fleet are electric trains.

Thus, for example, rural lines that will never be electrified carry about one per cent of passenger traffic although they constitute nine per cent of the total route mileage.

As previously mentioned, there are many unknowns about future long-term decarbonisation options. For this reason, a range of the percentage passenger emission reduction of each type of traction was derived using the difference between the definite and possible electrification scenarios. Freight electric haulage in the definite and possible scenarios was assumed to be respectively 70 and 80 per cent.

The figures in table 2 derived by this analysis show that, if a net-zero-carbon railway is to be achieved without a reduction in train performance, a substantial electrification programme will account for almost all the emission reductions. Nevertheless, there is a significant role for hydrogen trains whilst battery traction will have a minimal role.

Regardless of the decarbonisation imperative, electrification schemes can only be authorised if they have a robust business case. Reports such as Network Rail’s 2009 electrification route utilisation strategy and RSSB’s 2007 study on further electrification of Britain’s railway network (T633) provided the basis for the business cases that justified the Midland and Great Western main line electrification schemes. However, these schemes were later fully, or partly, cancelled due to rising electrification costs which, on Great Western, had risen to £2.3 million per single track kilometre (stk).

The reasons for this increased cost are detailed in the Railway Industry Association’s electrification cost challenge report, which explains why the Great Western scheme was an aberration and concludes that electrification should cost between the £1 and £1.5 million

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

per stk, as has now been achieved by recent projects. Assuming there are, on average, 2.5 stk per route kilometre, the electrification of 4,327 route kilometres (10,892.5 stk) in the ‘definite’ scenario would cost around £14 billion, or £500 million per year over 30 years. If delivered by a dedicated expert team as part of a rolling programme, it is likely costs would be further reduced, for example by initiatives to reduce the number of bridge reconstructions.

It is to be hoped that the unit electrification costs in the RIA report could provide the basis for business cases for busy non-electrified routes, including schemes that were recently cancelled or cut back. However, this depends on government having confidence that the industry can reliably deliver electrification in a cost-effective manner.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government is committed to a substantial rolling programme of electrification, for which the long-term aspiration is as shown on the map.

For England and Wales, the process for enhancements, including electrification, is the UK Government’s rail network enhancements pipeline, which contains just two electrification schemes totalling 24 route kilometres of electrification (Bolton to Wigan and Huddersfield to Dewsbury).

One reason for the lack of electrification schemes is that this pipeline process document does not mention decarbonisation. This omission highlights an issue that Government must address if it is to meet its net-zero target - that the requirement for carbon reduction should be addressed in all policy documents, ensuring that investment appraisal adequately values carbon savings.

33

TECHNOLOGY

PHOTO: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

The 2007 RSSB electrification study (T633) monetarised carbon savings for exemplar electrification schemes using a value of £79 per tonne saved from the Department for Transport (DfT)’s WebTag process. The resultant carbon savings were 20 per cent of the monetary benefits.

Under current appraisal rules, there will never be a zero-carbon railway, as it is not possible to develop business cases for all the required electrification schemes.

An urgent requirement A common theme of the CCC net-zero report is that delivery must progress with great urgency if this target is to be achieved by 2050 and that government must act accordingly.

It is also clear from this report that rail decarbonisation is quite straightforward, compared with the technologies and behavioural changes required in other sectors. However, the reality is that, other than in Scotland, it seems that any significant plans for electrification must await the outcome of the traction decarbonisation network strategy. It is understandable that the development of this strategy will take some time, especially as transitional arrangements, which are not part of this analysis, need to be considered.

However, there are heavily used routes which are an obvious and urgent electrification requirement that should not require further analysis. A start on such routes should be made now as experienced electrification teams

are about to be disbanded after the completion of 800 route kilometres of electrification in ten years. The loss of these teams can only increase the cost of future schemes.

Another factor that needs to be considered is air quality. As increasing numbers of cities introduce zero-emission zones, diesel emissions at stations within such zones are likely to become increasingly unacceptable, unless it can be shown that there is a plan to eliminate them.

It would seem certain that climate change will continue to rise up the political agenda, putting increased pressure on government departments to act. For rail, the challenge would seem to be persuading government that novel

self-powered traction can only ever be a small part of the solution, as this cannot ever have the same power and range of the high-powered diesel trains that need to be replaced. Hence, a substantial electrification programme is required to achieve a net-zero-carbon railway.

It must be understood that the only alternatives to a large-scale electrification rolling programme are slower trains, as novel self-powered traction replaces all diesel trains, or retaining diesel traction and abandoning any significant further rail decarbonisation.

Rail Engineer will be glad to share the spreadsheet on which this feature is based with any industry partner that might find it useful.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

34

TECHNOLOGY

TIGER is released into the

paperwork jungle

GRAHAME TAYLOR

O

ver the years - over generations in fact - there have been many questions that have been posed in the sphere of permanent way maintenance. Surprisingly few have been answered - or, at least, answered with

any degree of certainty.

Take, for example the simple question: “How much does it cost to fix a wet bay (variously known as a wet bed, a wet yard, a slurry bed etc etc)?”

Of course, there are answers, but most will be qualified by the catch-all - “Ah, but it all depends on…” followed by a long list of factors and, it must be conceded, an equally long list of subjective judgements.

Then there’s the vexed issue of whether measured shovel packing works in the Midlands or in Wales or in East Anglia.

Again, whatever answer is given is accompanied by qualifications and caveats. There are no straight answers.

But ask the question “How much paperwork is involved?” and the answer will be - universally and without hesitation - “TOO MUCH!” It’s an answer that has echoed down the decades. It’s nothing new. No matter how sophisticated a work control system may be - be it computer driven or otherwise - if it causes grief to the user right at the start and right through to completion, then it will not succeed. People just get in the way as they always do.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

But there is hope Imagine a permanent way management system that has an easy user interface and that does not rely on paper.

If this is not fantasy, then it’s jumped the first hurdle. People will like it.

Then couple in a few more useful features. A system that accurately references the location of each job, that checks the GPS coordinates and takes the user to the right job - not one that is a few yards away and that has already been done anyway.

Imagine a system that allows image files to be referenced so as to reduce the verbiage needed to describe a mundane task - all combined with technology that doesn’t choke on the quantity of data.

Add on a facility to amend a task or to generate a new one.

Perhaps there are problems with a wet stretch of track that could so easily be reduced if only the drains were cleared out. Maybe this drain clearance requires the use of specialist kit. But if the number of repeat manual treatments to the track can be called up, then a sensible investment case can be made for a one-off use of an expensive drain clearer.

TECHNOLOGY the existing paper process. It also offers more functionality to correctly identify potential repeat faults, faults within S&C and faults occurring within a registered eighth of a mile, simplifying appropriate sign-off where necessary.

Manual geometry measurement fault data can also be loaded into TIGER locally, so all geometry fault data is in one place.

Booking a hotel on-line

And finally, glue together a raft of disparate databases within the controlling software so that nothing is missed and - just as importantly - nothing is lost.

Too good to be true?

Take a pause for breath as this all seems too good to be true even alien to many responsible for track maintenance.

Ian Barber (Network Rail’s technical lead on the project) has spent many years dealing with track geometry and maintenance.

Tasked with delivering a drastic reduction of repeat twist faults, he set about drafting an ‘ideal’ maintenance system that would be built to help those at ground level rather than generate buckets of data to be explored only by those in suits.

Over the years, many have tried and, to give them credit, many have succeeded - to some extent. But technology, or the lack of it, always got in the way.

It is only now that there are serious (affordable and robust) hand-held devices that have a realistic battery life, that have sufficient memory and processing power to crunch all the input.

There are now multiple ways of sending and receiving data at speeds that seem almost instantaneous.

There are also now many who are computer savvy and who are at ease with the protocols involved. This was not always the case and there are still a few lingering outposts that need to be encouraged.

All this - the technology, the battery life, the memory, the processors and the data handling - was not available until relatively recently and so it is easy to write off the efforts in the past. It takes just one element to clog up the system and to frustrate the user. In the past, any failure of technology has had to be bridged with... paperwork!

Infrastructure management software

Tiger uses the same search and find logic now accepted in many non-work applications - such as when booking a hotel on-line.

Select a country, select a city, select the price and decide which cheap dive is most suitable.

From the home screen, maintainers can select the fault/faults they wish to deal with, selecting when it’s to be carried out and who will do it, reducing the current work load by 90 per cent.

Once the fault has been selected, work orders are generated and sent to the allocated persons (work-groups) electronically through the My Work app. The work can then be carried out, notes made, and photos taken on the iPad, before closing the work order. The work order passes back into Ellipse and is closed out.

The vital information on the work order is also sent on to TIGER for review by the section manager, who can assess what is required next or if the fault is fixed. If it has, then the status can be altered prior to the section manager signing it off. It then awaits sign-off by the track maintenance engineer (TME) before clearing the system.

Any resolved faults can still be accessed and, if further work is undertaken that can be related to that fault, then this work order number can be added later.

Built for track maintenance engineers and section managers, TIGER allows the rapid raising of work orders moving from the previous manual method to a maximum of just ‘three clicks’.

Stable technologies The system has gone live. Starting in October 2019, there will be a steady and gradual roll-out throughout the network, after periods of training.

TIGER builds its success on the integration of modern, and now stable, technologies. Doubtless, with further developments in communications and data storage, more ways of assisting ground level staff will become obvious.

This won’t be the end of the story, but there’s now a chance that the many questions posed at the start of this article may have some simple and, most importantly, objective answers.

Ian has worked with his team at Network Rail’s HQ in Milton Keynes to put together a seamless package. The team has worked with three computer companies - ABB, the owner of the infrastructure management software Ellipse, undertook specialist customisation, AMT Sybex wrote the apps for the iPad and DXC worked on the data input side.

And the name of the system? TIGER - Track Integrated Geometry Engineers Reports. It’s a simple acronym but, as it’s simple and logical, it is effective and memorable.

Geometry data is gathered using the Track Recording Vehicles (TRVs), and sent to Milton Keynes for processing. The data (geometry faults and alerts, dip defects and super reds, very-poor and poor track quality) is loaded into the CDMS (Condition Data Management System).

TIGER captures all these faults from CDMS and simplifies the process of raising work orders. The faults can be managed throughout their lifecycle to closure and sign-off, replacing

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

35

36

TECHNOLOGY

Colas subsidiary Spac has taken delivery of its first Volvo CE ECR25 electric compact excavator.

Batteries M

uch has been written recently, here in Rail Engineer and elsewhere, about the railway’s aspirations in terms of reducing its carbon output.

Diesel-free by 2040, zero-carbon by 2050, Scotland’s ambition to do it all by 2035, it’s a hot topic at present.

Proposed solutions include electric trains, hybrid trains, bi-mode trains, trimode trains, hydrogen-powered trains and even solar-powered trains.

But there is more to the railway than trains. The heavy plant that is used to maintain and renew the railway also runs on diesel and, as well as carbon emissions, the fumes themselves can cause problems when used in a confined space. Railway staff carrying out work in tunnels and in stations with large canopies or overall roofs have to deal with the emissions, sometimes even having to resort to breathing apparatus or forced ventilation.

So, it is no surprise that the major manufacturers of construction plant are looking at alternative power sources.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

For years, fork lift trucks operating in warehouses and factories have been powered by liquefied gases such as propane. This reduces emissions, but it still produces carbon.

Battery power therefore seems the logical way to go. Cables aren’t practical, so an on-board source is needed, hence batteries.

Once again, this solution isn’t new.

Vehicles of the ‘milk float’ type have been used for years, but the traditional leadacid batteries that power them are heavy and slow to charge.

Individual cells Dry-cell batteries, on the other hand, are light and charge more quickly.

Developed to replace the original non-

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

come of age rechargeable zinc-carbon batteries that have been used in many types of torches, radios and other portable devices since 1900, the first popular iteration of a rechargeable battery was the nickelcadmium (NiCd) version, which used nickel oxide hydroxide and cadmium as its two electrodes. Typical output of this chemistry is 1.2 volts, compared with 1.5V for the disposable original.

To overcome the small size and output of each cell, these new batteries were often fastened together in multiples to produce battery packs. Six cells produced 7.2 volts, seven 8.4 volts, and these packs often replaced traditional 9V zinc-carbon ‘alkaline’ batteries.

Even more powerful battery packs could be produced by simply combining larger numbers of battery cells. 14V and 28V standby-power units were common on aircraft, although these often also used a vented-cell construction, with the individual cells not sealed and any gases

© OLE HENRIK JOHANSEN/TEK.NO

TECHNOLOGY resulting from overcharging or rapid discharging being vented via a lowpressure relief valve.

However, NiCd batteries suffer from a ‘memory effect’. If they are never fully discharged, but are instead topped back up partway through the discharge cycle, they ‘remember’ this level and then won’t discharge any more, reducing the capacity of the cell.

They also contain between six and 18 per cent cadmium - a toxic heavymetal which needs special disposal arrangements. The result is that the ‘emissions free’ equipment they power isn’t as ‘clean’ as it could have been.

As a result, nickel-cadmium batteries were replaced by nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries, in which the negative electrode was actually hydrogen ions, or protons, absorbed in a metallic lattice made of an alloy of various metals including ‘rare earths’. The capacity of a NiMH battery is two to three times that of the equivalent NiCd version. Output voltage is similar and they don’t suffer from the memory effect.

Replacing the nickel with lithium produced the lithium-ion battery (Li-ion), again with higher outputs. As each cell now produced 3.2-3.7 volts, they couldn’t be used as direct replacements for the earlier types. However, they were quick to charge, had no memory effect and a high energy density.

On the down side, the electrolyte was flammable, and early fires caused problems for Samsung Galaxy Note 7 mobile phones and Boeing 787 airliners.

A development of the Li-ion battery, patented in 2001, is the NMC, which uses lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide for the positive electrode in place of the lithium cobalt/iron/manganese oxides of early examples, with the negative electrode being graphite or another carbon-based material. Electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf use this battery technology, with each 62kWh pack containing 288 individual cells.

© OLE HENRIK JOHANSEN/TEK.NO

The first production version for Veidekke is put through its paces.

Excavators

© JCB

More recently, LTO or lithium-titanate batteries use that material on the surface of their anodes in place of carbon. This allows electrons to enter and leave the electrode more quickly, permitting quicker recharges and giving longer life.

All of these developments in battery technology have resulted in the ability to make really powerful batteries that recharge quickly and don’t suffer from the memory effect that the early NiCd batteries did, and that enables the construction plant manufacturers to start developing new battery-powered machines.

Already in production is the JCB 19C1E fully electric mini excavator, which the manufacturer claims is the “industry’s first”.

The standard three-battery lithiumion pack gives four hours of continuous use while the optional four-battery pack extends this to five hours of typical work.

Battery status is displayed on a gauge on the instrument panel.

Four hours continuous use is claimed to represent a typical day’s work. Where railway access is limited, that should certainly be sufficient. Emissions are, of course, zero while the machine is six decibels quieter than the diesel-powered equivalent (decibels are logarithmic in scale, so a reduction of just 3dB is a halving of the noise energy).

While the mini-excavator may be considered too small for many rail jobs, it is ideal for limited-access work inside station buildings, culverts and the like.

For operators who want something larger, Pon Equipment in Norway has developed a battery version of a 25-tonne Caterpillar 323 hydraulic excavator. The 164hp (122kW) diesel engine has been replaced by an electric motor of similar output although, as the power curves

The prototype electric 323 excavator took Pon Equipment eight months to develop.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

37

38

© NISSAN

© OLE HENRIK JOHANSEN/TEK.NO

TECHNOLOGY

of the two are completely different, the electric motor controls had to be adjusted so as not to over-pressurise the hydraulics.

Understandably, the battery is large. At 300kWh, its nearly five times larger than the 62kWh Nissan Leaf battery (pictured above) mentioned earlier (a Tesla S has a 100kWh battery - this is still three times larger than that). It also weighs an impressive 3.4 tonnes - the team reduced the mass of the conventional counterweight to compensate for it.

The prototype took Pon Equipment eight months to develop. Veidekke, Norway’s largest construction and civilengineering company, has since bought eight of them for a reputed NOK5.5 million (£470,000) each. Øivind Larsen, plant director at Veidekke, explained his purchase to consumer technology website Tek. no: “For us, it is important to use new technology that helps reduce emissions from our machinery, and not least improve the everyday life of those who use the machines,” adding that the machine they have now purchased will reduce CO2 emissions by around 52 tonnes.

Bigger and bigger If a 25-tonne excavator is not big enough, how about a Komatsu HD6057 off-highway truck, which weighs 51 tonnes unladen and has a payload of 63 tonnes? Kuhn Switzerland, working with Lithium Storage and the Swiss Federal

The 323 excavator’s 300kWh battery weighs in at 3.4 tonnes but will run the machine for up to seven hours.

Office of Energy (SFOE), has converted this 111-tonne gross vehicle weight monster into an electric vehicle.

Out came the 23-litre, 778hp (578kW) diesel engine and in went a synchronous electric motor rated at 789hp (588kW) electric motors. An additional 120kW motor is fitted just to power the hydraulic systems. The battery was a challenge the four large packs have a combined rating of 700kWh and weigh 4.5 tonnes.

One good thing about these large dump trucks is that they run from the bottom of a quarry to the top - and back again. So, while it expends quite a lot of energy hauling its massive load up a gradient that is typically 1 in 12, it can regenerate almost as much while running back down empty. As a result, the batteries only need recharging once every three days.

Now in service with Ciments Vigier at its quarry near Péry, Switzerland, the eDumper was developed using bespoke technology. The motor (manufactured by Oswald Motoren), the transmission (Puls Getriebe), the batteries (Lithium Storage) and the inverter (Aradex) are all new designs, based on the latest generation of industrial products.

While an eDumper may be too large to use on the railway, it does show what can now be done. Between JCB’s miniexcavator and eMining’s dump truck, there is room to battery-power almost any item used on the railway today.

Volvo’s contribution Smaller and lighter equipment is getting the treatment first - the batteries and motors can be smaller. Volvo Construction Equipment has already supplied its first electric compact loader, to a customer in Germany.

The Volvo L25 Electric is powered by lithium-ion batteries that cover an eighthour working shift with one single charge in the machine’s regular applications, which include light infrastructure work, gardening, landscaping and agriculture.

The L25 also incorporates two dedicated electric motors - one for the drivetrain and one of the hydraulics. Decoupling the subsystems has led to higher efficiency across the entire machine.

Meantime, the company has also delivered its first ECR25 electric compact excavator to French contractor Spac, part of the Colas Group.

By mid-2020, the company says it will begin to launch a range of electric compact excavators (EC15 to EC27) and electric wheel loaders (L20 to L28), and will be stopping development of newbased models in these ranges.

In parallel, Volvo CE says it will keep working to find additional opportunities for electromobility across all its product ranges and applications. “We want to be able to offer our customers clean, efficient solutions that deliver on performance and productivity. We want to be able to offer responsible, sustainable products, a clear path to a better tomorrow.”

More to come These new machines are only the tip of the ‘electric’ iceberg. As pressure mounts to cut carbon emissions and to protect workers from harmful fumes, there will be more to come.

Eurotunnel awarded a contract in 2018 to specialist rail equipment manufacturer Socofer to design and build 19 battery

eMining (a joint venture between Kuhn Schweiz and Lithium Storage) is offering electric conversions of Komatsu’s off-road dumper trucks.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

TECHNOLOGY shunting locomotives. Aegis Engineering Systems will support Eurotunnel overseeing the standards and approval strategy. The first operational battery shunting locomotive will be delivered during 2020 followed by one per month until the order is complete.

A spokesperson said that replacement of diesel shunting locomotives with battery shunting locomotives, together with an ongoing related project to replace diesel generators with battery packs, will deliver a monumental step forward in Eurotunnel’s goal to eliminate all carbon emissions during maintenance works and improve the atmospheric conditions for Eurotunnel’s employees during maintenance activities.

UK railway regulator the Office of Rail and Road has issued guidance on reducing diesel engine exhaust emissions (DEEE) in the railway sector. Although much of this refers to the exhaust from diesel railway locomotives, some of it does also apply to plant being used to maintain and enhance the railway.

In a written statement, the ORR said: “We expect rail companies to minimise worker exposures to DEEE in tunnels (and elsewhere) by substitution (for electrical equipment) where this is reasonably practicable.

Volvo CE L25 Electric compact loader.

“However, we recognise that this may not always be possible and that alternative controls (for example siting equipment outside the tunnel; reducing emissions by use of particulate filters and selective catalyst reduction on the exhaust where possible; provision of forced ventilation through the tunnel; and powered respiratory equipment for workers) should be provided. The control

solutions will depend on the extent and duration of the task.

“We have seen examples of innovation in tunnel working, with trials of battery powered access equipment for regular inspection work in long tunnels.”

It seems that ‘battery is the new diesel’. It will be fascinating to see how this sector develops over the next few years.

#RAILMEDIAAPPY

GET RAIL MEDIA ‘APPY! ALL THE LATEST RAIL NEWS ON THE RAIL MEDIA APP

Structural Precast for Railways

DOWNLOAD NOW

Engineer

MAGAZINE

MAGAZINE

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

39

40

SIGNALLING

Cyber Security update PAUL DARLINGTON

T

he widespread introduction and availability of modern internet protocol (IP) fixed and radio-based telecoms networks provide many benefits for a modern railway. These include for both train control, maintenance, operation, asset management and passenger use - ticketing, train information and security. Having everything ‘connected’, though, does have some challenges that need to be carefully managed, with the biggest and most important issue being cyber security.

Railways were relatively late, compared to other industries, in adopting IP communications, but they have benefited from learning from others and adopting good cyber security measures. One can never be complacent though, as the threats from rogue individuals and organisations become increasingly targeted and sophisticated. Railways need to continue to adopt best practise and learn from the telecoms industry, and from companies like Nokia - who deliver networks all over the world for demanding enterprise industry sectors that require secure communications.

Over the last ten years, IP-based communications have become well established for train control systems and are available from a number of suppliers, so it is no longer possible to consider such systems to be totally isolated and protected from hacking, such as was the case with older bespoke systems. This is inventible as the railway is a ‘system of systems’, and applications need to communicate with one another via managed safe connectivity.

Connections are also required for maintenance diagnostics and to enable the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to support and upgrade software-based assets. That OEM may be based thousands of miles away and it is no longer practical nor necessary to send staff to site to undertake interventions. It may also be far safer to ‘log in’ remotely to support assets.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Real-world examples There are several examples of cyber ‘hacking’ into industrial and rail equipment. In 2003, a virus infection of a train company’s systems in Florida in the USA disrupted signalling, dispatching and other systems, resulting in widespread delays. The cause was believed to be worm virus known as “Sobig” which resulted in delays to services from Washington to Richmond and points south. Ten Amtrak trains were affected, with services between Pittsburgh and Florence halted because of dark signals and longdistance trains delayed for between four and six hours. More than a dozen commuter trains in the Washington area were cancelled.

In 2008, a 14-year old managed to hack into a tram system in the city of Lodz, Poland. The teenager achieved this using public library and open source information from the Internet.

He trespassed into tram depots to gather information needed to build a control device, using which he was able to control the trams and change track points, which resulted in derailing four trams and causing emergency stops which injured twelve people.

In 2015 “Project Honeytrain” ran to determine how a railway could be vulnerable to cyber hacking. A virtual rail infrastructure was reproduced with real hardware including computer systems and a communication network, but with no cybersecurity measures and with logins and passwords left at their default settings. Software components of existing railway systems and CCTV videos of real stations, as well as train operator workstations, were simulated, but to hackers around the world it appeared to be a real railway.

The Honeytrain project only ran for six weeks, but, during this time, a total of 2.7 million attacks were identified, originating from most countries in the world. The majority were automated dictionary attacks, trying to identify an unknown password using a dictionary list. This is why names or words on their own should never be used for passwords. One attack involved the same accessing IP address trying to control a mythical signal using a dictionary attack. The attack was not successful, but it demonstrated that the attacker had a good knowledge of

SIGNALLING

the railway control systems involved, and that the actions were performed deliberately.

In 2016, it was reported by Darktrace, a UK cyber security firm, that the railway infrastructure in this country was the victim of at least four major cyberattacks.

The network infiltrations appeared to be more exploratory than disruptive, but still a cause for concern.

The following year, in 2017, the widely publicised Wannacry attack affected many organisations globally. Germany’s Deutsche Bahn rail infrastructure suffered system failures and ransomware messages appearing on station information screens.

More recently, and worryingly, another piece of malicious software has been identified that is designed specifically to enable the damage or destruction of industrial equipment, and with the intention of disabling and safety systems that protect human life. A malware (malicious software) called Triton, also known as Trisis, was designed to compromise industrial control systems and to target control equipment used in oil, gas and nuclear energy facilities.

The Triton malware was designed to tamper with, or even disable, safetyinstrumented systems used by human operators to monitor industrial processes.

These systems monitor potentially dangerous conditions, triggering alerts or shutdowns to prevent accidents or sabotage. And because Triton’s code also contains the ability to disable safety measures, the ‘fails safe’ mechanism that exist to shut down equipment safely in unsafe situations, and similar to those we have in rail control systems, would be unable to respond.

Security incidents like these have the protentional to affect railways in many ways. Not just the loss of revenue while services are unavailable, but the recovery and restoration costs, potential prosecutions, damage to brand reputation, compensation to users and non-compliance penalties. A report by

www.checkpoint.com in 2015 said that, in an average day in some enterprise networks, an unknown malware is downloaded every four seconds. Every 53 seconds, a bot communicates with its command and control centre and every 81 seconds, a known malware is downloaded. A high-risk application is compromised every four minutes and every 32 minutes sensitive data is sent outside the organization.

Cybersecurity The rail control, command and communications sector is now very good at producing ‘safety cases’ for any new safety-critical or safety-related product. These are documents produced by independent engineers from the designers of the system and to analyse the safety arguments for the design and operation of the new product. These are then reviewed and approved by a separate panel of industry experts who ‘sign off’ the product, together with any constraints for its use. Under a traditional safety case, once it has been approved, the product should not be changed or altered in any way without a revised safety case being submitted.

The threat of a cyber security breach has required a different approach to maintaining safety from the traditional

safety case. If a cyber threat is detected or identified, it is vital that a “patch” to mitigate and defend against the threat is deployed without delay. So, defences have to be deployed quickly and the cyber security system has to be constantly looking for new threats and attacks.

Infrastructure managers cannot wait till an attack occurs and then create a project to deal with the issue. The cyber security defences have to be agile, automated and constantly refreshed and updated.

The key to any cyber security system is ‘defence in depth’, with layers of protection so that, if one defence is breached, the system is still protected.

Defences must not rely just on manual interventions, but must use the latest automation techniques, application of data analytics, machine learning, and end-to-end encryption. Security must be everyone’s responsibility and not just be left to the IT department. Simple precautions such as ensuring robust password management and not using portable storage media are equally important.

There are various standards and guidance to establish a cyber security regime, for example International Electrotechnical Committee IEC 624432-1 ‘Industrial communication networks - network and system security’. This describes the elements necessary to establish a cyber security management system (CSMS) for industrial automation and control systems (IACS) and provides guidance on how to develop the elements.

This includes defining the baseline security requirements based on risk and how to patch an effected system, with operators, suppliers and vendors having clear agreements in place to cover vulnerability testing, patch development,

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

41

42

SIGNALLING The National Cyber Security Centre is available to support the most critical organisations in the UK, the wider public sector and industry, as well as the general public. When incidents do occur, it can provide effective incident response to minimise harm to help with recovery, and learn lessons for the future. It also publishes lots of guidance for cyber security, which recently has included 12 principles for the effective control of a company’s supply chain. With the rail industry dependent of a wide range of suppliers from across the world, supply chain management of cyber security needs careful consideration.

EU Cybersecurity Act

testing and deployment. The facility to detect and respond quickly to incidents is vital, and a cyber security operations centre will need to be established, with the objective of minimising the impact of any attack.

ISO/IEC 27001 provides requirements for an Information Security Management System (ISMS) and ITU-T X.805 security architecture, to enable operators to assess network security and eliminate potential threats in complex environments. It can be applied across network operations, as well as in network management in three layers: 1. Infrastructure layer, which comprises basic communications network building blocks such as routers, switches and transport equipment; 2. Services layer, which comprises network services or circuits that deliver data generated by applications, such as signalling, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), land mobile radio or CCTV across the communications network; 3. Application layer, which comprises the devices over which applications run.

A major telecoms company such as Nokia has experience with all the layers in a network, unlike other companies which may only specialise in the Application layer.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

To further help industry and society to improve cybersecurity, the Cybersecurity Act (Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of April 17, 2019) entered into force on 27 June 2019.

The Act strengthens the mandate of the EU cybersecurity watchdog, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), which supports EU member states to tackle cybersecurity threats and attacks and to establish an EU-wide cybersecurity certification framework (“Framework�).

ENISA was established as long ago as 2004 and has been working to make Europe cyber secure.

The Framework will enable the publication of European cybersecurity certificates and statements of conformity for information and communication technology products, services, and processes to be recognized in all EU Member States. EU Member States will develop rules on penalties for infringements of the Framework and for infringements of EU cybersecurity certification schemes.

The Cybersecurity Act will allow businesses to certify that their products meet EU cybersecurity standards. Initially, the cybersecurity certification will be voluntary, unless otherwise specified

by EU or member state law, although mandatory compliance may come later.

Businesses designing, manufacturing

or implementing products, services or processes are recommended to assess their level of compliance with respect to the Act requirements and/or to consider certification once the schemes are available.

Cyber security for rail Nokia offers in-depth expertise in the development of cyber-security best practices, based on its experience of providing communications networks around the world. Its end-to-end security solutions incorporate security products and services that address the specific challenges of rail. For example, the Nokia Netguard Security Management Centre and Security Operations Analytics and Reporting platform enables security operations teams to automate and prioritise activities and report data to inform better business decisions.

Critical network elements such as base stations, network controllers, mobile devices and application servers need to participate in their own defence, with the defence capability best developed during product design and not as an afterthought. The Design for Security (DFSec) approach used

by Nokia deals with proactive security measures, including risk and threat analysis, secure OS configuration, access control, password policy, code review, penetration testing and other activities.

Nokia also implements reactive security measures known as Security Vulnerability Monitoring (SVM) to ensure that OEM product vulnerabilities listed by computer emergency response teams (CERTs) are highlighted for further qualification and possible patches.

Nokia also applies best-in-class certificate management practices to ensure that IoT devices are properly identified and certified at the time they are deployed. Existing 4G LTE network and emerging 5G networks are designed with certificate management systems in place. Manufacturer-provided certificates, with a unique, secure identifier, can ensure

SIGNALLING be designed for 5G, which offers reliable, high-speed, low-latency performance and much greater capacity than 2G GSM-R, to improve existing telecommunications services and allow the development of new rail applications. SNCF and Nokia will evaluate FRMCS applications both in the laboratory and in the field, with cyber security high on the agenda.

Robust network that devices have not been modified or tampered with prior to deployment and help ensure the identify of devices once in operation.

The large number of certificates and diversity of suppliers (certificate authorities) requires a significant effort to manage equipment deployments.

Technologies which automate the management of digital certificates can bring operational savings and prevent errors. Nokia combines its expertise in both LTE and IP to achieve mission-critical security that addresses the vulnerabilities specific to these technologies. Having a specialist company like Nokia available enables a railway to focus on its missioncritical responsibilities without being distracted by having to work with multiple security vendors to align on security or incident resolution.

Over 1,000 mission-critical networks have been deployed by Nokia with customers in the transport, energy, large enterprise, manufacturing, and public sector segments around the world.

Leading companies across a number of safety-related industries are benefiting from the decades of experience building some of the biggest and most advanced IP, optical, and wireless telecoms networks. In the UK, Nokia delivered the very first digital telecoms transmission systems for rail over 30 years ago, and, more recently, Alcatel Lucent, which built Network Rail’s Fixed Telecom Network (FTN) for GSM-R, was bought by Nokia.

Customers include communications service providers whose combined networks support 6.1 billion subscriptions, as well as enterprises in the private and public sectors. Through its research teams, including the world-famous Nokia Bell Labs in the USA, Nokia is leading the world to adopt end-to-end 5G networks that are faster and more secure.

It adheres to the highest ethical business standards and governments are relying on Nokia networks to deliver critical communications.

In Germany, DB Netz and Nokia are to trial the first ‘stand-alone 5G system for automated rail operation’. In partnership with Siemens, the DB Netz trials will form part of DB’s programme to automate part of the Hamburg S-Bahn. This €60 million project aims to have four trains operating automatically on a 23km section of Route 21 between Berliner Tor, Bergedorf and Aumühle by October 2021, ready for the city to host the World Congress for Intelligent Transport Systems. For such a prestigious project such as this, involving autonomous trains, cyber security must be second to none and to the highest standard available. Failure is simply not acceptable.

Trains will operate unattended for around 1km when entering and leaving a siding near Bergedorf station with a driver retained for the rest of the journey, but only intervening in the event of a problem. The trials will test whether 5G technology is mature enough to serve as “the connectivity layer for future digital railway operations”.

In France, SNCF and Nokia are to develop a 5G laboratory to prepare for the switch from GSM-R to the Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) in the mid-2020s. FRMCS will

Cyber security incidents and attacks are becoming ever-more sophisticated, and the potential damage that can result is growing. Railway infrastructure can ill afford any successful cyber-attacks. Not just financial loss is at stake, but safety too.

Railways will benefit from new networking technologies, including LTE and IP/MPLS, to support new services and improve the efficiency of the railway.

While such networks are future proof and scalable, they will introduce new security vulnerabilities.

However, with a robust network defence, the security threats can be addressed. While all mission-critical networks are different, sound security typically requires a move from manual processes to automation, the application of data analytics and machine learning, end-to-end encryption and a full lifecycle evaluation of cyber-security risks.

Nokia offers an advanced and comprehensive approach, built on its long experience and in-depth expertise in enterprise networks, for both security as well as mission-critical network design and operations. Its solutions are in line with best practices and published standards, to ensure the highest levels of protection for railway communications.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

43

44

SIGNALLING

Signalling FAILURES PAUL DARLINGTON

W

e often hear that “trains are delayed because of a signalling failure”. But why do we hear about it so much, and is it because there are more signalling failures?

Signalling is fundamental to the safe operation of the railway, ensuring that trains are spaced safely apart and conflicting movements are avoided. Railway signals are ‘traffic light’ devices, which tell a train driver if it’s safe to proceed along the track. As with road traffic lights, a driver shouldn’t pass a red signal.

Signalling failure refers to various things that go wrong, causing a train to be held up at a red signal. A stationary train quickly creates knock-on delays and, with the rail network busier than ever, the knock-on delay can be significant.

The total signalling asset count for the GB network is some 500,000 maintainable assets, situated in a wide range of environmental conditions which may affect their reliability and ability to be easily repaired.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

SIGNALLING Signalling equipment consists of a number of subsystems: » Control systems - allow a signaller to set routes, using a mechanical lever frame, signal panel or screen-based system; » Interlockings - ensure conflicting routes cannot be set; » Points - route trains through a track layout; » Signals - pass information to the driver - for modern digital systems, such as ETCS (European Train Control System) and the older RETB (radio electronic token block), this is provided via an in-cab display; » Train detection - provide train positional information; » Level crossings - allow footpath and road users to safely cross the railway.

Tracks are divided into ‘sections’ of track and normally only one train should be in a particular section at any one time, with signals positioned at the beginning of each section.

The signals are controlled via the interlocking which ensures conflicting routes cannot be set by the signaller. An interlocking can be considered to be similar to a locked door into an unsafe building. Only when it’s safe to proceed will the door be unlocked.

However, the interlocking does not check that everything is safe for the passage of a train, it only checks from a signalling perspective.

A section of railway track must be safe in other ways.

For example, the distance between the rails must be correct and the track-bed must be capable of supporting the weight of the train.

Other systems, known as track circuits or axle counters, detect if a train is present in the section. To switch a train between tracks, signalling point machines move points, but only when allowed by the interlocking.

In a modern signalling installation, all these systems require some sort of electrical power supply to function and a large signalling area will require telecoms links to connect the subsystems together. Telecoms GSM-R ( mobile phones for railway control) and RETB base stations are also required to provide a communication path to the train, for movement authorities for ETCS and electronic tokens for RETB. Sometimes, these systems break and the signal turns red, even when there is no train in the section, or, for ETCS and RETB, no movement authority can be sent to the train.

RAILWAY

Reliable Connectors for Harsh Environments Stäubli Electrical Connectors specialises in the supply of electrical connectors for harsh environments such as railways, offering innovative solutions that will increase productivity.

MPC – Modular Power Connector The compact and modular MPC system has been designed to connect many elements of a train’s electrical traction system, including the flexible connections between carriages.

Modular CombiTac System CombiTac enables multiple configurations incorporating different contacts for countless applications. The new CT-HE rackable version is particularly suitable for use with slide-in systems, being compact yet meeting railway standards for operating temperature, shock, vibration and fire protection. www.staubli.com/electrical

Staubli is a trademark of Stäubli International AG, registered in Switzerland and other countries. © Stäubli 2020 | Photocredits: Shutterstock, Stäubli

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

45

46

SIGNALLING

Signalling failures are not just a Network Rail problem. This is London Underground’s Northern line control centre.

Problems with track circuits and axle counters are common causes of signalling failures.

A track circuit is a small current running between the tracks and trains, and an axle counter (as the name suggests) counts the axles and track wheels going in and out of a section - if the numbers match, the section is clear for the next train. Track circuits are susceptible to corrosion and rail contamination resulting in trains ‘disappearing’.

This is known as a wrongside failure - a failure where the asset fails to an unsafe condition and one which must be thoroughly investigated so that the root cause is understood and addressed.

This can cause further delay until the failure has been independently investigated and signed back into service by a competent person.

On the other hand, if flooding was to cause the track circuit to operate and turn the protecting signal to red with no train present, that would be a rightside failure - one in which the system failed to a safe condition.

Axle counters don’t suffer from rail contamination, poor ballast conditions or flooding conditions that can affect track circuits, but some axle counter systems do not respond well to heat and, in the event of a power supply failure, axle

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

counters will come ‘back on’ and not detect if a train is present in the section. This requires a manual reset, which takes time and further delay.

A reliable source of electrical power is vital for modern signalling systems and uninterruptable power supplies (UPS), which take over when the main power supply is cut, are vital. A lot of investment is being made and, most recently, UPSs have been introduced on the West Coast. They are also provided for all new resignalling schemes.

In areas that don’t have a UPS, Network Rail is making the power supplies more reliable by replacing ageing cable. The health of the power supply system and cabling can also be monitored via remote condition monitoring equipment, supplemented by annual inspections. The objective is to fix problems before they become serviceaffecting faults.

A fail-safe system Signalling systems are designed so that, if something stops working, such as a signal or a set of points, trains will stop before they reach that location. So, if there’s a power failure, the signal goes black and the driver knows not to pass a signal unless it has a green or yellow light. If a set of points should fail, the last signal before it will automatically turn red so no trains can pass. On some of the busiest lines on the GB mainline network, over 100 trains will pass over just one set of points every day, so they must be made as reliable as possible.

Like signals, points can fail. They might get clogged with debris or ice, the drive mechanism might fail or, in hot weather, they might expand too much. Unlike other systems, the point machine is a single point of failure with no back up or duplicate system. When points do fail, the system goes into ‘fail safe’ mode and the protecting signal is made red.

As points are now monitored remotely, in many cases, problems can be fixed before the points fail totally. Electric heaters and NASA-grade insulation have been provided to stop ice forming and jamming the mechanism, and protective covers have been fitted to 4,000 points and 2,500 point-motors to keep snow out and prevent damage from ice that can fall from passing trains.

Improved training for installers and maintainers has also had a positive impact on points reliability.

Rails are painted white at critical points so they absorb less heat, which reduces expansion. Typically, a rail painted white is 5°C to 10°C cooler than one left unpainted.

If points do fail, they can often be secured in one position so trains can pass over. This keeps lines open and trains moving and reducing delay. This will mean staff getting to site, which can be a problem in areas with congested roads or remote locations.

Cable theft The theft of metal can be a big problem for the railway as thieves target signalling, telecoms and power cables, and even metal fences, to sell

SIGNALLING for scrap. Cable theft causes signalling failures and costs Network Rail millions of pounds each year. The total, taking into account the impact of freight delays and the cost to passengers who are late for work or have their day ruined, is even higher.

A lot of work has gone into tackling cable theft, including funding additional and undercover British Transport Police (BTP) officers, using CCTV to alert when people are on the network, installing new ways of securing cables, using forensic marking agents to make stolen cables easier to identify, and setting up a dedicated security team.

Network Rail, along with other industries, successfully lobbied the Government to introduce the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. This requires scrap metal dealers to be licensed and gives local authorities the power to refuse unsuitable applicants and revoke licences.

Police also have the power to close unlicensed scrap yards and sellers of metal must show verifiable identification which dealers must record and retain. In addition, cash trades for scrap metal are illegal and subject to unlimited fines.

All this has helped to make the sale of scrap metal accountable and to ensure all people trading scrap are doing so legitimately. The volume of cable theft has reduced, but it still takes place with some stolen cable now being taken overseas in containers for sale where the restrictions are less onerous.

Reduction in failures Given the media and social media reports on the subject, it may be assumed that there is an increase in the number of signalling failures occurring on the network. In fact, there has been a steady decrease year-on-year. According to Network Rail, in 2011/12 there were 23,000 signalling failures on the network causing a delay

of 100 minutes or more, in 2014/15 the figure was down to just over 20,000 and in 2016/17 it had reduced to 19,000. This is still a lot, as even one failure is one too many, but the trend continues downwards.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is concerned about passenger train service performance in the North West and Central region in England and has, in January 2020, put Network Rail on a warning for its poor overall service, saying that “Network Rail’s performance in terms of its contribution to delays in this region remains a concern�. The train operating companies for this area include Northern and Trans Pennine Express, which have also been criticised for their poor performance.

However, signalling failures in this region continue to improve. The overall number of signalling failures in the North West and Central region was 14 per cent lower, year to date, in January 2020 compared to January 2019. Signal failures were nine per cent lower, level crossing failures 11 per cent lower, signalling power supply failures 24 per cent lower and track circuit failures 24 per cent lower. Telecoms failures contributing to signalling failures were down 25 per cent.

However, permanent way track faults were 14 per cent worse and traction power

supply failures were 11 per cent worse, hence the ORR concern with the overall poor asset performance.

The ORR also looked at the cause of the recent poor performance of Trans Pennine Express (TPE) in the region and found it had been largely the result of train operations and not necessarily asset failures.

So how has the reduction in signalling failures been achieved? Improvements in the

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

47

48

SIGNALLING

reliability of signals are due to the progressive introduction of LED signal heads over the last 10 to 15 years, although LED technology has caused some reliability problems, especially in the proving interface with systems designed around incandescent lamps.

Track circuit performance has improved with the introduction of moulded tail cables, the upgrading of troublesome equipment, upgrading older installations with duplicated tail cables, and master-class initiatives to share best practise and improve competency with maintaining insulated rail joints.

Predict and Prevent ‘Predict and prevent’, rather than ‘find and fix’, maintenance is the objective.

Key to this is remote condition

monitoring (RCM), which is an umbrella term for a number of remote monitoring strategies including points and track condition monitoring using analogue sensors or event monitoring of signalling control logic. These systems are used to monitor and report condition and defects so that action can be taken before failures occur.

Reliability-centred maintenance, on the other hand, links maintenance with usage and performance. It identifies historic maintenance tasks that cannot be demonstrated to be beneficial to asset performance, so they can be eliminated or, at least, performed less frequently.

It also considers possible additional maintenance tasks and frequencies for assets that are used intensively or are of strategic importance. In simple terms, heavily used critical assets are given more attention than lightly used ones.

In-built resilience There is still much to do before “signalling failure” is no longer heard on station PA announcements, news or social media. Even when a potential fault is identified by the maintainer, gaining track access on a busy railway which is operating without a problem

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

can be a challenge, and, when faults do occur, getting the right staff to site can also be a problem in the busier parts of the country.

This is why new assets have to be designed so that they do not fail, with redundancy and resilience built in from day one. Nowadays, people expect everything they buy, be it a car, phone, washing machine or any consumer device, to work reliably out of the box. When buying new infrastructure, the railway demands and expects no less from the signalling supply industry.

New signalling systems are designed with far more resilience than previous ones, with diversity and redundancy built in. Processor-based systems with hot standby and double or triple redundancy are now available and in service, and which are able to have any failed critical components replaced with the systems still operational.

The telecoms network now employs ‘packet routing’ internet protocol IP, which provides multiple connections for signalling and radio systems.

The reduction in the number of signalling asset failures can therefore be attributed to the large investment in new signalling assets, to targeted interventions and to the benefits stemming from remote condition monitoring that can identify problems before they become failures. Of course, one must also add the sheer hard work and attention to detail of all those involved.

A reason for the overall poor performance, and increased media reporting of the problems, is no doubt the greater number of train services on the network along with the large number of passengers on those trains. It only takes one signalling failure to delay a busy train and the internet is immediately full of tweets and other messages informing the world of yet another “signalling failure”!

SIGNALLING

49

INNER PANEL ELIMINATING THE FLANGE GROOVE veloSTRAIL - extremely safe crossing for cyclists, wheelchair users, inline-skaters, baby carriages and trolley bags. ¬ veloSTRAIL inner panels are available in 600 mm and 1,200 mm and are designed for train speeds up to a max. of 70mph for the UK with full Network Rail Product Acceptance.

¬ excellent compression of “flange groove”, even at very low temperatures (tested down to - 25 °C) coupled with high load capacity in road direction for safe crossing of individual users.

STRAIL (UK) Ltd. - Richard Whatley Tannery Lane // Send / Woking // GU23 7EF // Great Britain // Phone +44 (14 83) 22 20 90 // Fax + 44 (14 83) 22 20 95 // richard@srsrailuk.co.uk

Transforming the Market Subscribe to our

by Turning Our Customers’ Wishes Into Reality

Approved Replacements for Legacy Rectifiers & Transformers

free publications at www.railsubs.com

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

Economy Range

250va 1.4kva

500va 2kva

1kva 3kva

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

Insulated Range

2 x 5ADC 1 x 10ADC

2 x 8ADC

FT TRANSFORMERS LTD www.rail-media.com

+44 (0) 121 451 3204

www.ft-transformers.co.uk Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020 FT Transformers Advert2.indd 1

06/02/2015 13:16

50

Collis hits 50 NOT OUT SIGNALLING

LESLEY BROWN

H

aving opened its doors in 1970, Collis Engineering is celebrating 50 years in business this year. From its local steelwork origins to a multi-disciplined specialist in civil engineering, consultancy, contracting and steelwork fabrication, the company has come a long way over the decades…

Founded by Peter Collis, the company received its very first rail enquiry in 1973 - to supply a signal structure for a local British Rail depot. The job was well done, and further rail-related opportunities followed. Collis was, thereafter, officially a rail business.

The company reached another milestone in 1997 when, after identifying an opportunity in the market, Collis opened a civil engineering arm to provide an on-site presence to partner with its design and fabrication business.

Collis Civil Engineering boasts extensive, on-site capabilities. In this field, services provided include the installation of both concrete and piled solutions, covering all Network Rail’s recognised piling methods, structure erection, modification and refurbishment, the supply and installation of LOC (location case) platforms and walkways, level crossings, as well as general ground works and bespoke steelwork solutions.

In 2019 Collis was awarded a Network Rail principal contractor license [PCL]. The first works being undertaken through this PCL are on the North London lines project, with the replacement of nine upper-quadrant mechanical signal structures and all the associated site works, including ground investigations and surveying, piled and

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

concrete foundations, structure installations, ballast retention and the commission and testing works.

An expansion in design capabilities has resulted in Collis now offering a comprehensive consultancy service that includes sub- and superstructure design, structural assessments, 3D modelling, site surveys, 3D scanning, ground investigation, and reporting.

In 2020, the firm’s activities are split into two main areas: » Fabrication of points operating equipment and other related components, for which Collis holds a Network Rail framework agreement; » Design and fabrication of railway signalling support structures (posts, cantilevers, gantries), with all associated civil engineering requirements.

Right people, right places The company has always operated from its Alfreton site in Derbyshire, expanding periodically to meet the demands of its customers. It currently employs around 100 staff.

That expansion led to the formation of the Signal House Group in 2003. A new senior management team took over the Collis business, along with its sister organisation Signal House.

The Signal House Group and its operational companies Collis Engineering, Collis Civil Engineering, and Signal House - hold the following quality, safety and environmental certifications: » ISO 9001:2008 - Quality Management Systems » ISO 14001:2004 - Environmental Management Systems » OHSAS 18001:2007 Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems » ISO 1090-2:2008 - CE Marking, Structural Steel - Execution Class 2&3 » RISQS - Qualified by audit for 61 categories A specialist LED lighting company, SH Lighting, was formed in 2008 and, in 2017, the acquisition of the design and engineering consultancy Michael Evans and Associates was completed. Today, the group employs approximately 130 staff across three offices in Alfreton, Derby, and Leighton Buzzard.

Given the changing face of the railway market, and increased competition in particular, to have been in the business for 50 years still going strong is a terrific achievement and a tribute to the group’s hard-working members of staff.

Collis and the entire Signal House Group has always considered itself a family. The companies have very low staff turnover and awarding employees with long-service awards for 25 years with the company has become the norm. Currently, 16 members of staff have achieved this, with the longestserving employee currently at 40 years.

Similarly, training the next generation of engineers has always been a priority to drive the business forward. Collis’ apprenticeship program, which is both challenging and varied, gives employees the opportunities to work within design, fabrication, machining, quality and assurance or civil engineering.

SIGNALLING

Future forward A diverse product range and a history of successful project deliveries has established Collis as a leader in its specialist fields, with the company building on its past achievements. Several Network Rail framework agreements, the recently awarded PCL and an innovative new product will drive the company through Control Period 6 (CP6, from 2019 to 2024) and beyond.

With regards to innovation highlights, Collis introduced its hinged lightweight signal post to the market in 2012, a hugely successful innovation that has been utilised on hundreds of Network Rail projects - estimates suggest more than 2,500 posts currently reside on the network. As well as being a completely maintenance-free structure, engineered to last 35 years, it accepts any signal head and offers the health and safety advantage of avoiding working at height. Network Rail has approved two versions - the standard and a heavyweight alternative for accommodating more signalling arrays - that are used extensively across the UK, including in OLE and DC electrified areas.

2020 will bring something new again. In collaboration with Signal House, Collis will

be launching ‘Fibre LED’ to the market.

A combined product of signal structure and LED signal head, the signal aspects are displayed using fibre optics with the LED light source being located at ground level. The product is classified as zero maintenance and will change the way signalling works are delivered.

In parallel, Collis’ on-site capabilities - such as the first installations of 610mm diameter driven tubular piles, a recent addition to its piling capabilities and comprehensive list of piling solutions - continue to grow.

The company is already established as a supplier and installer of hand-driven mini piles, designed to reduce the time and costs associated with smaller piling requirements.

One step ahead Moving with the times, anticipating future needs and investing in research and innovation are all key to long-term business success - factors Collis has clearly taken on board over the past 50 years.

Given the impacts of climate change, building flood resilience into railway networks is set to become increasingly important. Hence the pertinence of Collis’ embankment platform, suitable for areas susceptible to flooding. A standard

structure mounted on top of custom-height stilt legs, it has an enclosed cable trough.

This design ensures the equipment being supported is positioned above flood water levels and, should flooding occur despite this, the potential damage is kept to a minimum, resulting in much lower repair costs. This type of platform has already been installed at Hinksey, Westerleigh, Cowley Bridge and Bridgewater.

With an eye to the future requirements of the digital railway and Wi-Fi, Collis is also planning to expand into additional areas of work such as telecommunications masts. These will be used both within the rail environment and externally in the wider telecoms field, with the roll-out of new 5G networks driving requirements.

The company’s engineered hinged antenna mast provides a maintenance-free, easy-to-use structure to support a variety of radio antennas. It is already being installed as part of the Four Lines Modernisation (4LM) project, run by London Underground, to transform the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines by 2023.

Whilst always seeking new opportunities, Collis Engineering prides itself on quality products and service. This quality is confirmed by the amount of repeat business from satisfied customers. Collis is considered a key supplier both to Network Rail directly and through many of the signalling-focused Tier 1 businesses.

Here’s looking forward to the next five decades in action…

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

51

52

FEATURE

Improving New Train Introduction

industry requirements

MALCOM DOBELL

I

n issue 180, (December 2019), Malcolm Dobell reported on recent experiences by train operators in introducing new trains, as presented

to a recent IMechE’s Railway Division seminar.

This month, he considers the comments made by the Rail Delivery Group, infrastructure owner Network Rail, safety organisation RSSB and rail regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). He also looks ahead to two new projects that could have an impact on travel in the coming years.

Reliability Mark Molyneux from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) explored the reliability impact of so many new trains. He presented this against a background of a) generally improving fleet reliability, b) that about 15 per cent of delays are down to fleet issues and c) new trains may take a while to grow their reliability, but are, generally more reliable than the trains they replace.

With about half the national train fleet being replaced, the industry is rightly concerned that overall fleet performance will take a hit before recovering. In trying to understand whether this was inevitable, and what could be done to help, RDG has developed a guidance

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

note, New Trains - A Good Practice Guide, which is currently out for consultation.

Typical issues highlighted include software function and validation (it is apparent that software developers and train engineers do not understand each other!), the need for clear pass/ fail criteria for the demonstration of compatibility, and improvements to specifications and contracts so that trains are specified in terms of reliability, against realistic timescales and using industry guidance such as Key Train Requirements and Key Interface Requirements. All this is necessary as it is unacceptable to subject the railway’s customers to debugging in public!

The seminar turned to standards, infrastructure and system compatibility issues.

Rashid Wahidi from Network Rail introduced the chief engineer’s Vehicle Introduction Forum, a group which was unfamiliar to most of the IMechE audience.

It was set up in late 2017 with a number of objectives: to help develop good practice amongst those dealing with the unprecedented quantity of new vehicles being introduced over a short space of time, to assist new manufacturers entering the UK market without experience of the UK’s unique infrastructure constraints on compatibility, to guide new and established operators introducing vehicles for the first time under the current legislative regime, and to promote collaboration, shared learning, and the establishment of best practice to make the introduction process as smooth as possible.

FEATURE All suppliers, lessors, lessees, key stakeholders and assessment bodies generally attend. The group has successfully produced a tracker covering all planned vehicle introductions - both new and cascade - so that possible network/resource constraints can be identified, developed alternative gauging and signal sighting assessment processes, initiated the development of a new method for pantograph encroachment assessment and kicked off a Key Interface Requirements document for people introducing vehicles to a route covering all areas to support a successful introduction.

The latter will complement the industry’s Key Vehicles Requirements document.

Hugh O’Neil from RSSB described the Route Compatibility process outlined in Rail Industry Standard RIS8270-RST: Route Level Assessment of Technical Compatibility between Vehicles and Infrastructure. To “put a vehicle into use”, three separate activities must be undertaken: a) a new vehicle must be “put into service” - a process to demonstrate that a rail vehicle is fundamentally safe as a rail vehicle and complies with the Technical Specifications for Interoperability, Notified National Technical Rules, b) it must be demonstrated that is it compatible with the infrastructure on which it runs effectively demonstrating compliance with RIS 8270 - and c) it is integrated safely onto that infrastructure and all the other systems - technical and operational - used to manage residual risk.

The accountability for all this is firmly on the Duty Holder - the train operator (TOC) - although responsibility for a) and b) might be sub-contracted to the vehicle supplier. Hugh emphasised the accountability because, although Network Rail is necessarily heavily involved in the compatibility assessment, it is the TOC

that must issue and sign the Statement of Compatibility. Stakeholders - Network Rail and, generally, other operators using that route - must be consulted, but none of them have any approval right.

When a Statement of Compatibility is issued, all documentation needed to define any limitations, restrictions or requirements on which the compatibility depends has to be updated, the data that describes asset characteristics relevant to compatibility must be maintained, updated and made freely available to relevant parties, and the infrastructure or vehicles must be maintained within the characteristics on which compatibility depends.

David Galloway from Network Rail carried on with the Safe Integration process. David defined Safe Integration as “the action to ensure the incorporation of an element (a new vehicle type, network project, subsystem, part, component, constituent, software, procedure, organisation) into a bigger system, does not create an unacceptable risk for the resulting system.” He said that Safe

Integration of a rail vehicle with the local route or local characteristics is an essential part of meeting safety obligations under Railways and other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006.

As an example, if a train with drivercontrolled doors is being used on a route for the first time, each platform risk assessment will require to be reviewed and changes might be necessary properly to control the risks the assessments might identify.

On electrified routes, longer, faster and more powerful trains are increasingly the norm and this is great, unless perhaps, you are the power engineer making sure that there is “enough electricity in the tank”. Alex Buchinger presented the challenges facing Network Rail in providing power for new trains. He outlined the modelling and assessment processes used to evaluate traction power needs and highlighted the many factors that have to be considered involving the electricity supply industry, the HV and/or overhead line equipment and, where relevant, the DC system. He also referenced system enhancements to support more demanding trains and the compatibility issues that sometimes have to be resolved such as harmonics induced into vulnerable circuits and resonance.

The most challenging message of all was the warning that some upgrades can take five years to organise after the requirement has been identified. This timescale may be longer than the time from the contract being let to the first train into service for some rolling stock procurements, so it begs the question “who can take the joined-up view when planning future power capacity requirements?”

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

53

54

FEATURE

FYRA trains were intended for the Brussels to Amsterdam route.

Paul Hooper, head of interoperability and rail vehicles at the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), presented some of the problems and issues observed on trains that have been authorised into use. He explored nine questions: » Why are TSI ‘compliant’ new trains revealing ‘hidden’ issues at or after authorisation? » Are they really ‘hidden’ before authorisation? Should they have been identified earlier? » If so, who should have identified them and at what point? During hazard ID? Design reviews? » Is the problem actually with the Technical Specifications for Interoperability/Notified National Technical Rules conformance process or compatibility with legacy infrastructure?

Is it the manufacturers’ or the operators’ problem, or shared? » What is the role of the infrastructure manager? » Are the issues inside or outside of authorisation process or straddle it through safe integration? » Is Authorisation being used as a milestone to pay manufacturers? Is this part of the problem? An Authorised train which cannot be put into use is the same as an unauthorised train unless you are a manufacturer and want payment. In either case it cannot be used in service but could drive the wrong behaviours. » What could be some other contributory factors giving rise to these unintended consequences? » Should the Authorisation process / CSM be used to capture the residual issues and is it right that ORR feels like it is ‘refereeing’ the resolution of these issues?

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Paul was conscious that past trains have had problems in service, but more recently, issues have occurred on fully TSI compliant trains that have been extremely serious; he cited the Brussels-Amsterdam high-speed FYRA trains that were eventually returned to their manufacturer is probably the most high-profile example.

Closer to home, Paul outlined other failures such as failures of the service brake on two different fleets where there was no safety integrity level defined for the software, and the issue with ghost images in the windscreen of another fleet. Are these genuine emergent properties or are there weaknesses in the TSIs or supporting Euronorms?

He turned to other issues that are ill defined in standards using stepping distances and the climbing and inter-car surfing risks caused by the umbilical cables between cars being set at various heights up the car ends as examples. Did these risks get identified early enough in the hazard identification/risk management process for appropriate attention during design process? Perhaps designers from other countries were more used to a better-behaved local population? He also mentioned the problem that the train fire

safety standard BS6853 was superseded by EN45545 even though the requirements for seats in the latter had been shown to be inadequate.

He mused whether delayed infrastructure increases risk because vehicle production schedules get re-jigged, or people might be pressured to take short cuts, or that shortage of test facilities might lead to test not being sufficiently exhaustive, or the TSIs do not address all risks Paul explained what the ORR can do. He said that when new trains are submitted for authorisation as ‘compliant’ and can theoretically pass the process, ORR use tools in the regulations such as conditions and limitations to manage non-compliances or, indeed, residual issues. He added that they use the safety assessment report produced by the independent assessment body and ORR decisions around safe integration and the Essential Requirement ‘safety’ to ensure that transferred risk has been properly accepted. He noted that ORR can only revoke authorisations before the vehicles are put into use but can and will use Health and Safety at Work and Railways and Other Guided Systems powers once trains are in service, and that Network Rail is becoming a concerned landlord over some new trains’ issues and application of the compatibility process.

Paul had asked other EU National Safety Authorities (NSA) for their experience. One NSA said it had retained additional national rules and had given its infrastructure manager a stronger permissioning role. He added that other NSAs are more intrusive in their authorisation assessment. However, apart from the FYRA project mentioned above, Paul said that Europe is not seeing the sorts of issues experienced in UK - why?

In attempting to answer this question, Paul observed that the UK has generally been a good European by adopting the TSIs and weeding out national rules. Could this perhaps have gone too far, taking our eye off the ball and letting safety-by-

The curved windscreen on the Class 385 caused problems with ghost images.

FEATURE more challenging than simply assessing that standards have been complied with.

It requires an experienced project team, that is knowledgeable about how the trains will be used and about rolling stock engineering, that knows the right questions to ask and that engages with the train’s designers. This is a different proposition from only buying consultancy services that assess compliance with specifications, TSIs and NNTRs.

HydroFLEX design lapse in some areas? Could it be that new trains are too sophisticated for the ‘standards’ regime to identify risks at the specification and design stage? Indeed, is the standards regime lagging behind new innovations? The ORR is being approached regularly on topics such as dual fuelling, hydrogen powered trains and very light rail, while the TSI for locomotives and passenger stock has few requirements for software.

Paul concluded by wondering whether the changes to regulations over the last decade have led to unintended consequences, whether current UK specifications are robust enough, whether operator involvement at the design stage is being stifled, and whether manufacturers

are missing some skills to thoroughly review designs. He also observed that some changes to TSIs in areas of crashworthiness have, in turn, led to bigger inter-vehicle gaps, slimmer longer vehicles and increased stepping distances with legacy infrastructure.

This led to Paul’s final question with probably a deliberate double meaning: “What should be done to manage gaps that have appeared which lead to unintended consequences?”

Your writer would observe the old adage that “standards are for the guidance of wise men (people) and the observance of fools”. Determining the goals - the purpose and function of a train - and then using the standards to help achieve the goals is much

And now for something completely different There followed two presentations on projects that are at quite different stages of development. The first was from Helen Simpson from Porterbrook Leasing about the prototype HydroFLEX unit (issue 175, June 2019) which is a partnership between Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham. One Class 319 unit was converted to hydrogen and battery power in just nine months and demonstrated at Rail Live in June 2019.

Helen’s presentation started with how low-carbon energy sources are developing in UK and, particularly, how wind farms generate more electricity than is needed overnight when demand is low.

Essentially, this surplus energy could be stored if suitable storage systems were

Technical Excellence Whatever your rail crossing challenges, we’ll work with you to overcome them.

Our team has built an unrivalled depth of knowledge and experience enabling us to provide solutions that are engineered to meet specific site and ground conditions, track use, variations in track gauge, fastener type, rail type and sleeper design.

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

12 - 14 May 2020 Stand D30 - Olympia, London

Road Crossings

//

Road Rail Access

//

Pedestrian Crossings

Rosehill Rail_Rail Engineer Half Page Advert MAR2020_Tech Excellence.indd 1

//

Anti-Trespass

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020 11/02/2020 13:51

55

56

FEATURE

DLR has ordered a new fleet of trains from CAF.

available, and one such means is to create hydrogen, which leads to comparatively low cost.

The UK’s hydrogen creation and distribution network is small, but growing.

Helen focussed on safety and approvals for the train, especially the next stage for main-line running. She said that many of the issues she expected to be problems have proved not to be. For example, there are well-developed standards for the use and transport of hydrogen that can be adopted or adapted for rail, making the assurance process a little easier.

Helen said that the team had learned a great deal about the practical performance of battery and fuel-cell powered trains, especially how best to deal with peak demand on actual and simulated journeys.

She added that she had become quite expert in some areas, such as the risk of escaping hydrogen on a train powered from the OLE where electrical sparks are an inevitability. In essence, Helen said that the issue to manage is having hydrogen escape into confined spaces - once in the atmosphere it disperses to a very low dilution incredibly quickly.

That said, there is still much to do though the hazard identification and risk assessment process to identify criteria against which the acceptability of the train for main line running can be judged.

InnovateUK funding has now been granted for a main line trial around February 2020.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

DLR comes of age Finally, there was a presentation from Phil Shrapnell and Andrew Dunsby from TfL Engineering about the new trains for the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) that have recently been ordered from CAF to replace the current B90/92/2000 fleet which are near the end of their 25-year design life. DLR is growing, and Phil said that 43 trains have been ordered. This includes ten extra trains for growth with an option, which he believed might be exercised imminently, for a further 14 trains for further growth.

Current DLR vehicles are two-section, three-bogie articulated cars run in pairs or threesomes. It is probably a sign that Docklands has come of age as a fullyfledged metro that the new trains will be five-car trains with two bogies on each car. The trains will be just under 88 metres long and will have wide, open gangways between cars (nominally just over 17 metres long each), which will lead to long inter-car gangways as DLR has minimum curve radii of 40 metres including reverse curves on crossovers.

Other features include resilient wheels with inside frame bogies, liquid flange lubrication, three motor cars, two doors per side on end cars and three doors/ side on intermediate cars, ADO for a few short platforms, air conditioning, interior CCTV system, comprehensive passenger information system and VDU screens for

adverts, LED lighting adjustable for time of day, USB sockets, and remote condition monitoring.

An unusual feature is the requirement for obstacle detection, useful on a railway where the staff member on board is rarely at the front of the train looking out, although Phil acknowledged that making such a system compatible with some of DLR’s sharp curves will be a challenge.

Some of the trains will also be fitted with unattended track monitoring equipment.

Phil talked about some of the challenges in addition to the previously mentioned 40-metre-radius curves. A specific issue is designing the interfaces for Passenger Service Agents. These include controls at each doorway - enabling control, door close and door reopen controls as well as a fixed microphone, and the emergency driving position. Making these suitable for 5th percentile female to 95th percentile males is a requirement. Phil concluded with the programme dates of mid 2020 for the final design review, testing to start in 2022 including 20,000 km testing on a Spanish test track that will be equipped with Thales Seltrac for the purpose. And finally, delivery of the first train to DLR by December 2022.

Conclusion This was a really stimulating seminar, and illustrates that scale of the challenge that the UK rail industry has over the next two to three years.

Congratulations are due to the IMechE’s organising committee, led by Martin Elliott, chief technical officer of Ricardo Rail, for organising the event, and to the unusually candid speakers.

RA ILW AYP EO PLE .CO M

TH EL AR GE ST WE DEDI BS CAT ITE E IN T D RA HE IL C UK ARE ER S

THE CHANGING FACE OF RAIL

WHETHER YOU’RE NEW TO THE INDUSTRY OR LOOKING FOR A NEW CHALLENGE

VISIT WWW.RAILWAYPEOPLE.COM TODAY

way People.com

58

FEATURE

Steventon Bridge OVERCOMING THE OBSTACLE

PETER STANTON

(Above) Steventon Bridge before electrification. Listed and protected by the District Council due to the local traffic disruption that rebuilding would cause.

(Inset) In testing, two coupled 5-car Class 800 units achieved 125mph under the bridge.

I

n the complex story of the electrification of the Great Western main line, one name keeps cropping up Steventon Bridge (issue 167, September 2018). This structure, and the problems it has caused, has been the subject of much media coverage, both technical and public, and has led to some robust discussions with neighbours and stakeholders. It has also driven an important engineering challenge.

Rail Engineer was invited to the Railway Technical Centre at Derby to meet Garry Keenor of Atkins, to discuss the design and construction issues at the site and hear how the challenges were overcome. Garry described the process as a new approach to modelling the OLE/pantograph interface using FEA (finite element analysis) techniques.

It sounded fascinating.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Background The Great Western Route has undergone a massive change in recent years as part of the Greater West upgrade programme. Following on from the successful introduction of diesel-powered High Speed Trains in the 1970s, this latest project sought to improve journey times and the passenger experience still

further by electrifying the route from London to Cardiff using a 25kV AC overhead contact system (traditionally known as overhead line equipment OLE). The scheme has faced many challenges through the years - one of which being what to do about Steventon bridge.

The village of Steventon is situated to the West of Didcot on a 125mph linespeed twintrack section of the Great Western main line. The village is cut in two by the railway, and the line is traversed by three roads that cross the railway using Steventon Bridge, Stocks Lane level crossing and Causeway level crossing.

Steventon Bridge is a Grade two listed brick-built arch structure dating back to the era of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - a valued piece of history but subject to much remedial work over the years.

Safe and reliable OLE operation depends on the ability of the pantograph on the train to collect traction current and follow the wire as it rises and falls to meet infrastructure conditions. Particularly relevant to Steventon are the restrictions imposed by the two levelcrossings and the low bridge height.

FEATURE UK standards generally comply with the EU technical standards for interoperability but, for OLE, a generic set of OLE rules apply, with allowed non-compliance for UK conditions. To achieve the best possible performance under all conditions and at all locations, without the need to design from first principles all the time, these rules must necessarily be conservative.

Under these rules, the designer is driven to include the rate of rise and fall of the wire as seen by the train, generally expressed as a gradient of 1:X (one unit of vertical rise and fall over X units of length).

Deviating from limits can mean loss of collector equipment contact, and therefore traction power, along with increased wear on the contact wire, arcing, and a higher potential for dewirement.

The early design processes made the normal assumption that the bridge would be reconstructed to allow for a ‘standard’ OLE design and the running of electric trains at normal linespeeds, in this case 125mph.

However, as the processes of consultation with local authorities and stakeholders progressed, it became apparent

that this assumed strategy of reconstruction would not be accepted and the existing bridge would have to be retained, resulting in the linespeed for electric trains being considerably reduced and journey times being lengthened by around five minutes.

Technical issues As the existing Steventon Bridge is very low, the installation would result in a wire height of 4.22 metres, even with the adoption of reduced electrical clearances. That would not normally be a problem, but Stocks Lane level crossing is only 399 metres away, where wellestablished safety legislation requires the provision of a minimum contact wire height of 5.8 metres, resulting in a wire height of six metres at the adjacent structures.

To meet these two constraints, the wire gradient between them could be set no shallower than 1:202. The normal UKapplied rules are that the gradient is no steeper than 1:(5 x linespeed in mph), so a 125mph linespeed would dictate a maximum gradient of 1:625. (It is interesting to note that mainland European systems widely use a maximum gradient of 1:1000.)

Working backwards, the 1:202 gradient would impose a maximum linespeed of 202/5 or 40.4mph - a speed which would impose crippling restrictions on this key trunk route to the West, taking into account braking and acceleration. Because of this, the engineers involved used empirical judgement and set the limit at 60mph.

The programme identified this problem as early as 2010, and subsequently sought to reconstruct the bridge with a higher profile - as has been carried out at many other sites on the route. However, permission to demolish and reconstruct was refused by the District Council.

By 2018, Network Rail was facing imminent entry into service of the Didcot to Swindon section of the electrified railway, and so had no choice but to construct the OLE at Steventon with the gradients set at 1:202. Following this, Great Western Railway made the understandable decision to switch its bi-mode trains from electric to diesel and back again either side of the bridge, and slow its non-bi-mode, electric-only EMU fleet down to 60mph to pass under the bridge.

OLE in place under Steventon Bridge.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

59

60

FEATURE The result was significant time penalties - especially in the case of westbound trains which stopped at Didcot and then had to accelerate to linespeed on diesel power. The situation was acceptable at first, as trains were operating to the historical diesel timings, but the approaching December 2019 timetable change meant that a solution was needed to meet the planned overall London to Cardiff timings.

Incidentally, the designers were not simply taking a leap of faith in setting the speed limit at 60mph. They knew that the traditional generic rules on gradient were conservative, using values that could deliver minimum and maximum contact forces at the pantograph and comply with national rules.

However, that philosophy does not mean that fiercer gradients will necessarily drive excessive forces. Network Rail’s new Series 1 OLE, developed specifically for the Great Western route although intended to be used elsewhere as well, uses higher tensions than normal and also had been designed in parallel with the new pantographs on GWR’s electric fleet. Atkins was responsible for the detailed design of Series 1 at Steventon and both Network Rail and

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

Atkins believed that higher speeds were possible with the existing gradients, but needed to demonstrate that and achieve a satisfactory case for those higher speeds.

D-RSS simulation package Atkins had recently developed the Dynamic Rail Systems Simulation (D-RSS) software package and it was agreed with Network Rail that it could be applied to evaluate and test the potential for operation at a higher speed at Steventon.

D-RSS simulates the pantograph/OLE interface at a higher level of fidelity than traditional lumped-mass model systems, using a modern FEA approach. It was developed in-house using FEA software for holistic dynamic simulation across the system and has been validated to BS EN 50318:2002.

The software offers optimised design development, useful for areas where bespoke design arrangements are necessary, and challenges conservatism in system design, resulting in a leaner, optimised and location-specific design solution. A sister tool, OLE-StAT, gives the opportunity, in the later stages of the project and during commissioning, to compare the as-fitted system with the original design.

Overall, D-RSS provides the opportunity to determine where the TSI compliance threshold really lies, rather than just following rules which may be too conservative. In the case of Steventon, the modelling predicted that the compliance limit would be reached at around 110mph.

Live testing The results of the Class 800 simulations using D-RSS gave Network Rail the confidence to progress to the next stage, high-speed testing. So, in early 2019, a twin five-car Class 800 set, with two pantographs raised and spaced at 214 metres, passed through Steventon at gradually increasing speeds in both directions, starting at the existing temporary linespeed of 60mph.

The pantographs were instrumented using DB Systemtechnik equipment by DB ESG employees. Atkins staff on the train then analysed the outputs immediately after each run, using preprepared routines. The results were shared in real time with ground-based staff to allow a go/no-go decision to be made immediately before the next run.

FEATURE Almost immediately, the results were found to correlate closely with the D-RSS predications and a clear relationship between speed and contact force was identified.

Run speeds were slowly increased until, finally, two passes were undertaken at the full 125mph design linespeed.

However, at these speeds, the contact force was starting to exceed the allowable limit in the TSI and national standards, so it was decided that 110mph was the acceptable limit.

The second type of electric rolling stock introduced onto the Great Western route is the Class 387. This time, the test train consisted of three fivecar sets with a total of three pantographs, 80 metres apart.

For this class, the speeds were raised from 60 mph to 110mph and, again, the test results correlated closely with the D-RSS simulation.

These runs confirmed that the higher tensions of Series 1 OLE, combined with the compliant nature of modern pantographs, resulted in a performance well beyond those limits imposed by the current UK rules.

As a result, Network Rail felt able to raise the permanent speed restriction for electric trains to 110mph in September 2019, thus allowing the speed capability to be available for the December timetable change. In addition, Class 800 trains no longer have to switch to diesel power and back again.

However, while this is a very positive result, the investigation is not over. Network Rail suspects that it might see increased contact wear, and therefore higher maintenance costs, due to the higher forces at the site. Network Rail will therefore undertake detailed wear measurements throughout the graded section every six months, the outcome of which will allow re-assessment of the adopted periodicity of wear measurement or, indeed, may allow further increase in the allowable speed.

So, Network Rail and Atkins traction performance will be have been able to use the compliant - even though the D-RSS tool to raise electric gradient rules may not be met. train speeds from a severely “This methodology can be restricting 60mph to a more used in the future at other palatable (but still reduced locations as a tool to avoid for class 800) 110mph. This is other constraints, thereby a positive achievement, but reducing the capital cost of still does not meet GWR’s electrification.” requirement to utilise the full capability of the route and run Thanks to Garry Keenor, group at 125mph - only reconstruction electrification engineer at can achieve that.

Atkins, independent consultant However, raising the Peter Dearman and Simon linespeed to 110mph, without Warren of Network Rail for their further modification to the help in preparing this article. infrastructure, is a great The work of Doctor Nikolaos achievement.

Baimpas, now of Train-Rail In overviewing the work, Infrastructure Solutions (T-RIS), senior Network Rail project in developing the D-RSS engineer Simon Warren said: system and applying it to the “The D-RSS system moves Steventon problem is gratefully dynamic OLE simulation acknowledged. from a process that is © DB SYSTEMTECHNIK very challenging, and therefore rarely done, to one that can be a routine part of a design process in constrained locations, removing significant capital cost and programme time from major programmes of work.

“Following the example here, D-RSS may be used to analyse a location where it is not possible to comply with wire gradient rules between a level crossing and a low overbridge, thus limiting electric train speed. D-RSS can be used to support the lifting of these speed restrictions, by demonstrating that electric

Graphical representation of the contact wire gradient; installed wire profile in red, rules-compliant profile in grey.

The pantograph during a test run at 200km/k (125mph).

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

61

62

FEATURE

Innovating FOR RESILIENCE Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

FEATURE

NICK KING

I

t’s a challenging time for everyone on the railway at the moment.

Looking at it from the point of view of passengers and freight users, what the railway is actually delivering is less than what we would want and certainly less than they desire.

Network Rail has the responsibility for providing the railway’s infrastructure - all the things that make it possible for train and freight operating companies to run their trains. That’s something like 24,000 passenger services a day, along with more than 600 freight services, so, when there are any disruptions on such a very busy railway, they have an enormous impact.

Twenty years ago, the railway used to run 5.2 million services a year. Today, it is more like 7.4 million services a year. As an industry, the railway carries double the number of people than it did 20 years ago. Looking just at those two amazing statistics, that’s a fantastic achievement.

But there is one more statistic, and it’s not so great. Performance over the last seven years has dropped, on average, in excess of five percent. Those three sets of numbers are out of balance. The first two are just fantastic, the third one is just a disaster, and it’s almost embarrassing to have to mention them.

The need for resilience Network Services is responsible for resilience on the railways across the UK and therefore has to ensure that the railway is available to move passengers and freight as and when required. It

needs to work out how to make the railway more resilient to the types of events that stop it running smoothly from a major flood or a fallen tree to cows on the line. Because all of these types of incidents, large and small, have an impact on passengers’ journeys and on the congested railway. Even the smallest incidents can have a big knock-on effect, causing delays for hours.

Climate change used to be a topic of debate about whether it’s real or not.

It’s absolutely here, it’s not an “if” or a “when”, it’s actually happening.

As an example, in my second week as head of Network Services, I had my first experience of a catastrophe for the railway. 25 July 2019 was, as you may remember, the hottest day on UK record over 38 degrees.

We knew it was coming. As an industry, we did a phenomenal amount of preparation, learning from experiences in the past. We did a huge amount of work on track and the infrastructure, our rolling stock colleagues worked on engines and on air conditioning, and the industry said: “We are ready to go.”

We pre-planned and we cancelled a number of services on that day. We closed down something like five percent of the

railway to enable us to move people into pre-planned places of work and we were all pretty confident.

On the day, the first six hours went pretty well, we moved thousands of people to work in London with no major problems.

But then, in the middle of the afternoon, things rapidly started to go wrong.

What happened? We started to lose the overhead traction power. Had we talked about the overhead? No, we had not, and we ended up with nine catastrophic failures.

As a result, we cancelled over 20 per cent of passenger services - that’s over 4,400 services across the UK. We affected unbelievable numbers of people and we cancelled more than 30 per cent of all the freight trains. In some areas, we actually had to ban freight altogether from midday, because we were uncertain about how the railway would cope. These are not really things that, as an industry, we want to have to do.

So, I had the pleasure of being the ‘voice of Network Rail’ - it was my second week.

I had to explain how we thought we were ready to go when we weren’t.

After that, we started to put all sorts of reviews in place and we talked about resilience, we made new plans and reviewed old ones.

(Left) Replacing a point motor after flooding.

(Above) When the overhead wire expands so much that the balance weight hits the ground, the wire goes slack and is prone to damage Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

63

FEATURE Another blip Then we got to 9 August. That was the day when two of National Grid’s power stations had a blip in the power supply, putting an unstable frequency into the overhead. In itself, it wasn’t a big issue.

We did have some power outages in our signalling systems, but they were back up and running within two minutes.

The overhead traction power supply didn’t go down at all, but, as an industry, we went into an absolute meltdown.

Over 60 trains experienced the frequency changes in the overhead power and selfprotected, shutting themselves down.

That’s quite normal in modern systems, they have to protect themselves from damage. Once the frequency settled down, they should have rebooted themselves.

But what we didn’t know was that there were other algorithms hidden away in the train management systems that made it necessary for more than half of those trains to have technicians dispatched to restart them. So, passengers were stranded, and everyone on those trains took to social media, and we had a very bad press.

In both instances, we were confident about the resilience of our assets. But then crippling failures came out of the blue because we didn’t know enough to see the issues arising.

To quote Mike Tyson: “Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.”

So, we need robust resilience to be able to bounce back off the ropes when the network gets punched like it did on that day.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

© JOSHUA CARR/TWITTER

64

Nobody’s talking I’ve now been in this role for seven months and I’ve learnt something in that time - as an organisation, we don’t talk about resilience. Or, at least not in the way that I think we could - and probably should.

We talk about security, we talk a lot about incident management, but we don’t often talk about resilience, and particularly about the resilience of our assets.

Both of these incidents have shown we have a lot to learn about improving resilience on the railway. Performance and resilience are inextricably linked.

And if we want to add a third element to form a trinity - it would be performance, resilience and innovation. We need to innovate to improve resilience and to improve performance.

Everyone remembers the old adage proper planning and preparation prevents poor performance. This is particularly true of resilience.

One comment following the heatwave and power outage was that Network Rail is good at dealing with pre-planned disruption such as major engineering works, but is less good with unplanned disruption.

So, what lessons can we learn? How can we work at recognising potential disruptive events earlier so we can start planning for them or escalate the response quicker?

Improving performance through innovation Defining innovation is tricky, because it often defies simple definition. It is a word that gets thrown around a bit too easily sometimes and becomes attached to all sorts of things.

Which is probably why the Ministry of Defence put a great deal of effort into writing a 60-page White Paper just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly it is. For them, successful innovation is the introduction of novelty that results in change that delivers value (where value is a measure of usefulness and costeffectiveness).

Then they distilled it even further ending up with the articulate and concise: “Innovation is gaining value from the exploitation of novelty.”

Just as it is tricky to define, innovation is even more challenging in action. This is why we need to differentiate between ideas that sustain and ideas that disrupt.

Sustaining ideas incrementally improve what has gone on before and make things better. Disruptive ideas can sometimes deliver worse performance, albeit in the short-term, but they offer a different value proposition and have greater potential for the long term.

Both approaches are valid, but it is often easier to implement a sustaining idea over a disruptive one because sustainment follows the path of least resistance!

FEATURE So, maybe it’s time to challenge that and not necessarily follow the path of least resistance, but instead, as an organisation, become systemically innovative. That’s a real challenge, but a worthwhile one that will deliver value - to us, to our passengers and to our freight customers. Another way to put them first.

Innovation isn’t also just about the big, headline-grabbing developments. There are many small ways in which we can apply new technologies and processes, or apply existing solutions in a new way, that will help build a more resilient railway, both in terms of asset sustainability and operational performance.

Some of what we need to do isn’t new. It’s things we used to do, but have forgotten how to. For example, we don’t need anyone to tell us how to run a railway. Thousands of people, working in the industry, know how to run a railway. However, we have lost the art of collaborating and pulling together to do so.

In putting the passenger and freight user first, Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines is setting about creating a virtual vertically integrated railway, so we all work together to achieve our goal - better performance for the customer.

21st Century Ops Network Services is busy in other areas as well. Our 21st Century Ops Programme aims to bring focus back to operations and put it at the heart of the rail industry.

Operations exists to deliver a safe and reliable railway and is at the core of Network Rail’s purpose. By improving our operations capability and performance, 21st Century Ops will enable us to make sure that we are putting passengers first.

There has been a huge amount of progress in this. Highlights to date include:

» Identifying “quick wins” to support operations managers, aligned to local requirements, such as having more people to support investigations and administrative tasks; » Input from industry stakeholders to inform the Network Operating Strategy, so that it clearly defines how the network operates now, how the rail network will operate in the future, and the outputs and outcomes required by routes to improve train service delivery; » Developing the guiding principles for organisation design, specifically those focussed on operations, which have been agreed with heads of operations and distributed to route directors; » Identifying ‘3 Squared’ as the preferred supplier for a new competency management system, with a pilot on the North West & Central, North route, to ensure it meets the needs of the user requirements, during the first

»

»

»

»

three months of 2020 and, hopefully, a national rollout from April to December 2020; Improving operational capability by defining career pathways and defining the training development needed in key roles across the operations community; Working with the Institution of Railway Operators (IRO) to optimise the use of IRO learning resources and provide professional recognition for operators; Reviewing, amending and introducing new tools and processes to support operations managers in the competence assurance and development of their teams; Aligning major stations with the 21st Century Ops portfolio to initiate five key work packages which will help stations to be viewed as a critical element to operations and to the improved passenger journey.

ETCS Tree on the line at Four Ashes, West Midlands.

Another important workstream at Network Operations is developing a longterm deployment plan (LTDP) for ETCS (European train control system) digital signalling.

Since the publication of the plan in June last year, Network Rail has been working alongside the Department for Transport (DfT) to identify the strongest candidate areas for digital deployment and to establish where to start the rolling stock fitment. An assessment involving the DfT, operators and Network Rail regions has highlighted the opportunity to replace life-expired signalling assets with digital signalling in three key areas:

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

65

66

FEATURE

» West Coast North: commencing in the Warrington and Wigan area along the West Coast main line, with plans to continue deploying digital signalling further north to Preston and Carlisle and up to Scotland in the following control periods; » Midland main line: the Bedford area on the Midlands main line is a good location to commence digital transformation, due both to the large amount of rolling stock already fitted and to the digital capabilities of Thameslink, which runs along the same route to St Pancras; » Anglia: Ely to Peterborough and Kings Lynn digital deployment in the Anglia route will stem from the East Coast Digital Programme, which will deploy digital signalling in the Southern part of the East Coast main line from Kings Cross to north of Peterborough.

The routes have agreed to fund development and feasibility studies for each one of these areas. These studies will establish if these proposals are viable for ETCS renewals, after which the government can consider funding rolling stock fitment in CP6 to be ready for ETCS renewals in CP7.

A memorandum of understanding between the regions and the DfT has been proposed that would enable both parties to plan their respective investments effectively, while the longer-term aim is for the LTDP to be fully embedded into any future strategic business plans for the regions.

Flooding at Draycott, near Derby.

Back to resilience So, there is a lot going on in Network Operations. However, as I said earlier, one of our main challenges is that, as an industry, we have lost the art of being operators and of understanding what it takes to operate a railway.

For example, on 25 October, there was a bridge strike in Lancaster - a lorry knocked

part of a bridge onto the track (see below). Locally, this resulted in 25 service cancellations and 39 part-cancellations as the railway recovered itself, which doesn’t sound too bad.

However, by the end of the day, a total of 622 trains were late as a consequence of that one event in Lancaster. It was West Midlands Trains’ largest delay event of the day, and they don’t even run services to Lancaster!

In fact, the only part of the UK on that day that didn’t have late trains was Penzance. Everywhere else had trains delayed as a consequence of that one event in Lancaster.

What this shows is that we’ve forgotten how all of the different parts of an integrated railway come together - it’s like dropping a pebble into a pond, the effects just spread.

So, one of the principal goals of CP6 is to restore that understanding, and work together to minimise disruption by improving resilience.

Nick King is director of Network Services at Network Rail. He spoke on Innovating for Resilience to the annual conference of the Signalling Innovation Group, held at Bristol Temple Meads station on 11 February 2020.

Rail Engineer | Issue 182 | March 2020

RODIOÂŽ Remote Optical Detection of Obstructions & Intrusions

RODIO is an end to end system driven by Artificial Intelligence to effectively address the complex challenges of remote condition monitoring.

LiDAR Optics LiDAR Scanner

Self-Cleaning Mechanism

Telescopic Mechanism

Power Adapter / Battery Multiple Mounting Adapters

Highly Accurate AI Classification of Obstruction & Intrusions Real-time Data Driven Alerts & Notifications from the Edge Self-Healing & Self-Organising Wireless Mesh Network Rapidly Deployed & Scalable Solution Multiple used cases covered: Cable Theft Trespass & Vandalism Detection Earth Movements & Landslides Livestock/Animals On Line Worker Safety Tunnel Monitoring Level Crossing Management Behavioural Patterns (e.g - Suicide)

www.vortexiot.com +44 (0) 1792 732053

Vortex IoT

info@vortexiot.com

@VortexIoT

When intelligent infrastructures don’t just react but anticipate. That’s ingenuity for life.

With a growing need for mobility, advanced software solutions help to meet the demand for increased availability, optimised throughput and enhanced passenger experience. With over 160 years of experience in passenger and freight transportation and our IT know-how, we are constantly developing new and intelligent mobility solutions to provide greater efficiency and safety. These include prescriptive monitoring systems, dynamic control systems and electronic information and payment systems. With tomorrow’s innovative solutions driving us into the future, urban living becomes modern living.

siemens.com/mobility