Rail Engineer - Issue 163 - May 2018

by rail engineers for rail engineers

MAY 2018 – ISSUE 163

STAIRWAY to HEAVEN

TIME AND TIDE Runcorn’s railway bridge strides proudly across the River Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal.

EXPLORING THE DATA MINE

A LITTLE SAND (PART 2)

Network Rail’s multiple infrastructure databases have now been combined to support Track DST.

The results of RSSB’s investigations into using multiple and variable-rate sanders to improve traction.

www.railengineer.uk

PERMANENT WAY

WWW.RAILROADSHOW.COM NO BETTER TIME Never has it been a better time to be in the rail sector. There is a vast opportunity for suppliers to secure new contracts across both the existing network as well as within new large-scale infrastructure projects.

18 JUNE

THINGS CHANGE However, the industry is changing, new suppliers from other industries are entering the arena, procurement processes are changing and there is an increased focus on joint ventures.

All this is leading to confusion and missed opportunities.

ADDLESHAW GODDARD MANCHESTER

22 NOV BIRD & BIRD LONDON

“

The Procurement Roadshow has been designed to enhance your knowledge of the procurement process and ultimately help you to not only tender for more business, but win it!

“

ON THE DAY… The day will be split in to two distinct sessions.

The first part of the day will be our standard summit format in which we have invited respected speakers to discuss key topics.

A

EVENT

For the first time, we are thrilled to be offering workshops for the second part of the day. This will allow you to take away tangible learning to enable you to really put in to practice what you have learnt.

Bid Management International and leading procurement specialists, will conduct the workshops. They have a wealth of experience in civil engineering, power, rail, airports and building. They have worked with major contractors and clients such as Network Rail both in the UK and overseas.

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

16

46 50 54

Feature

06 10 16 22 30 34 64

Permanent Way Exploring Network Rail’s data mine Grahame Taylor explains Track DST and cyclic top.

Total Rail Solutions Chris Parker meets the men behind Total Rail Solutions and GOS Engineering.

A little sand in the right place works wonders Malcolm Dobell investigates RSSB’s tests of extra and variable-rate sanders.

News Network Rail standards, high-speed freight, new carriages, electrification costs.

Stairway to heaven Graeme Bickerdike visits the ventilation shafts in Kilsby tunnel on the WCML.

Time and tide Stuart Marsh describes restoration work on the Queen Ethelfleda viaduct.

Easter success!

Network Rail worked at 3,000 sites over Easter - and 20 were classified RED.

5G: A general perspective Clive Kessell considers the advantages 5G communications will bring to rail.

Technology alone is not enough David Shirres attended this year’s RIA Innovation Conference.

Electrical excellence: The importance of attention to detail AM1 Projects used skill and experience on both Victoria 2: Sutton to Wimbledon resignalling and to recommission a substation in Hampshire.

58 50 58 62 68 72

Hyperloop: prospects and challenges Gareth Dennis questions the hype behind the loop.

Performance or capacity?

Rebeka Sellick on the IMechE capacity report she helped to write.

62

HS2 scores sustainable with BREEAM Lesley Brown reports that HS2 is the UK’s first infrastructure project to receive this approval.

Ethical labour supply VGC is the first UK labour supply company to achieve the new Ethical Labour Sourcing Standard.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

3

RailSupply GrowthFund

Affordable finances to accelerate your business to reach new horizons Finance Birmingham manage a flexible and affordable loan fund, which is available to your business seeking new growing market opportunities within the rail supply sector. Open to SMEs across England, having access to affordable finances allows for your business to strengthen its capabilities, competitiveness and productivity as well as create new jobs and safeguard part of your existing workforce. The fund is fully supportive of the aims of the rail industry and the Rail Supply Group’s ‘Fast Track to the Future’ vision.

The Rail Supply Growth Fund is available for: •

Competitive loans of between £500k and £2m

•

Capital expenditure, working capital or funds for a new product launch

•

New and existing businesses within the rail supply chain to unlock growth potential

•

Businesses based anywhere in England

A potential financial contribution is available of up to 10% of the application value to assist innovative crossover products, services and participation within the rail supply chain.

For more information about our innovative Rail Supply Growth Fund contact Finance Birmingham on: call: 0121 233 4903 email: enquiry@financebirmingham.com web: www.financebirmingham.com/railsupplygrowthfund

Come see us and the Rail Supply Group STAND K56 1-3 MAY 2018 EXCEL, LONDON

Wor king wit h

Finance Birmingham Limited is authorised and regulated by The Financial Conduct Authority and is entered in the register under the registration 579201

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

EDITORIAL

Incentivising Innovation

What’s not to like about a DMU gearbox that offers savings in fuel, CO2 and diesel emissions, as well as reduced maintenance costs, so that it can pay for itself in about four years? The answer seems to be that the individual companies concerned do not get the full benefit from these savings and so are not incentivised to replace the current gearboxes.

As we describe this month, this problem was mentioned at the excellent Railway Industry Association’s innovation conference, at which delegates considered procurement and risk aversion to be significant barriers to innovation.

Yet much is being done to support innovation, as was shown at the RIA conference. This includes the way that work package owners are supporting the delivery of the Rail Technical Strategy requirements and various Network Rail initiatives including its revamped product approval process and its rail innovation and development centres.

The recent establishment of the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) was also described at the conference. This is a collaboration between academia and industry to provide purpose-built centres of excellence to develop new products and technology, for which private rail companies have committed investments totalling £64 million.

Despite this, there is sometimes not the incentive to innovate as with the gearbox example. This can be a problem with train operating franchises that do not last long enough to recoup their investment or innovations that cross the track-train interface.

As our conference article describes, this is not such a problem in the electrical supply industry, in which the regulatory system actively encourages innovation.

Thus, it would seem that the ORR and DfT need to consider how a similar regulatory framework to incentivise innovation could be developed for the current rail industry structure.

Undoubtedly, future innovations will require the huge increase in telecommunications data capacity that could be provided by a 5G rail network. Clive Kessell reports from a recent telecommunications industry seminar that considered the mobile operators and equipment provider’s viewpoints, as well as wider business trends, to see what a 5G rollout will entail.

We also have a report from an IMechE conference that considered how to get more capacity and better performance from the current network. In her report, Rebeka Sellick explains the solutions presented at the conference and highlights the work done by the professional institutions to influence Government policy.

One factor reducing rail capacity is that signal spacing must allow for worst-case braking from poor adhesion. This happens when the small contact area between the wheels and the rail, the size of a one penny piece, cannot transmit the huge traction and braking forces involved. RSSB has led tests of additional and variable discharge sanders to find a solution to this problem. Malcolm Dobell explains why this is the biggest advance in adhesion management for years.

Extra capacity was also provided by some of the work undertaken during the Easter holidays. As Nigel Wordsworth reports, 15,800 workers on 3,000 worksites delivered work worth £118 million, all of which was handed back on time. Inevitably, such work affects train services over the holiday period, highlighting the importance of Network Rail working with train operators to minimise the disruption.

Deciding when track must be renewed, or when remedial action is needed, is a complex balance of risk, performance and funding.

To support such decisions, Network Rail has developed its Track Decision Support Tool. As Grahame Taylor explains, this brings together data in the company’s various infrastructure databases, presenting it in an intelligible manner to better inform decisions. In addition,

the tool will also predict the development of serious track faults.

The three-span 279-metre bridge over the Runcorn Gap is, as Stuart Marsh describes, a stupendous structure that is in need of extensive work, including steelwork and castiron parapet repairs, grit blasting and painting.

In his article, Stuart explains how this work required bespoke solutions to take account of wind, tide, passing ships, environmental constraints and tight operational clearances.

A bespoke scaffolding solution was required for the brickwork repairs to Kilsby tunnel’s 20-yard diameter ventilation shafts.

Graeme Bickerdike explains the intricacies of its erection and how the tunnel’s extrawide shafts were required to assuage the predictions of doom-mongers that it would be impossible to breathe in newfangled railway tunnels.

Today’s doom-mongers are concerned about the impact HS2 will have on the environment. Yet, as Lesley Brown has been finding out, the project’s sustainable approach will deliver an improved ecological outcome and its BREEAM certification gives an independent assurance that sustainability is in HS2’s DNA. Some feel that HS2 is not required as hyperloop is just around the corner. Gareth Dennis debunks this myth in an article explaining why it is not a credible transport system despite its impressive engineering.

Instead, hyperloop is an experiment, largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, which generates potentially harmful glossy publicity claiming that railways are an outdated mode of transport.

Whilst this may beguile those who do not look beyond the hype, the reality is that steel-wheel rail will continue to benefit the world for many years to come.

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

5

6

THE TEAM

NEWS

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

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

Standards challenge

peter.stanton@railengineer.uk stuart.marsh@railengineer.uk

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Jolene Price jolene@rail-media.com

Network Rail is hoping to see greater innovation, cost efficiency and third-party funding in the rail network by asking contractors, suppliers and stakeholders to recommend changes to its standards.

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

Part of: ® www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

These standards - the detailed requirements that underpin how the railway and the delivery of improvement projects are run - exist to ensure that the railway is safe, high-performing and costefficient, but they are often seen as overly complex and adding unnecessary cost.

In partnership with the Railway Industry Association (RIA) and a number of key suppliers and stakeholders, Network Rail has developed a new standards challenge process. Suppliers and other stakeholders are now able to submit a standards challenge application if they consider a standard to be incorrect, not enable best practice, or drives increased cost without a comparable benefit.

All submitted challenges will be reviewed by Network Rail.

Network Rail chief engineer Jon Shaw (pictured) said: “We’ve recently updated our 400 most critical standards but, to ensure they always represent current best practice and constantly strive to safely reduce the cost of the railway, we need the help of our wider industry partners as well as experts from other industries and universities.

“The launch of the standards challenge process is the lever for this, providing genuine recognition and incentives to propose more efficient ways of both enhancing and maintaining our railway.”

RIA technical director David Clarke said that the standards challenge was a key recommendation of the Hansford Review into contestability.

He added that it provides rail suppliers with a tool to “question overly rigorous standards” to unlock innovation and reduce costs.

The move is part of Network Rail’s ‘Open for Business’ programme - a series of reforms designed to make it easier for third parties to fund, finance or deliver work on the railway, which itself is part of a wider agenda to make tax-payer-funded Network Rail function like a private sector business.

NEWS

coming soon...

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

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

STATIONS

High-speed freight

Rail Engineer reports on station construction and redevelopment, using technology to improve the passenger experience, and managing access and revenue.

Mercitalia, the freight arm of Italy's stateowned railway, has unveiled plans to convert high-speed passenger trains for freight.

Expected to launch in October, Mercitalia Fast freight services will operate on the Caserta to Bologna route between the Caserta Marcianise and the Interporto di Bologna terminals.

The service will use modified ETR 500 high-speed trains, which will complete the route in three hours and 20 minutes at an average speed of 180km/h. The service will meet a demand in the market for the transport of “time sensitive” products, Mercitalia has said.

Marco Gosso, chief executive of Mercitalia Logistics, said the company plans to extend the service to other terminals and cities on the highspeed network in the future, including Turin, Novara, Milan, Brescia, Verona, Padua, Rome and Bari.

Each 12-car train will have a capacity that is the equivalent of two Boeing 747 Cargo airplanes and will be equipped with roll containers to make it easy to load and unload cargo.

JULY 2018 / JANUARY 2019

Accessibility, Architecture, BIM, Barriers, Buildings, CCTV, Car Parks, Catering, Cleaning, Escalators, Landlord Permissions, Lifts, Lighting, Maintenance, Passenger Information Systems, Planning Issues, Platform / Train Interface, Platform Screen Doors, Platforms, Records, Refurbishment, Reporting, Retail, Security, Software, Smart Ticketing.

AUGUST 2018 / FEBRUARY 2019 RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE Rail Engineer looks at what’s involved in maintaining and renewing the UK Rail Infrastructure and the latest technology and innovations making it faster, easier and more cost effective, especially in these areas: Asset Management, Cable Hangers, Construction, Drainage, Examinations, Lifting, Modular Systems, Painting, Plant & Equipment, Precast Sections, Refurbishment, Replacement, Rope Access, Scaffolding, Spray Concrete, Surveying Equipment, Surveying Techniques, Tunnel Boring, Ventilation, Waterproofing.

Want to learn how to win more business?

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

Manchester – June 2018

www.railroadshow.com

London – November 2018

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

7

8

NEWS

New Mark 5 carriages on test Caledonian Sleeper, the operator that runs the overnight sleeper services between London Euston and various destinations in Scotland, has started testing its new carriages on the West Highland line from Glasgow to Arrochar and Tarbet.

CALL NOW ON 01244 629919

UK coverage in all areas • Commercial • Industrial • Rail Infrastructure • Residential • Heritage • MOD

e: admin@abbiaccess.com

w: www.abbiaccess.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

In total, 75 carriages worth £100 million are being built by Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF and will be phased into service by operator Serco from the autumn.

They are the first new sleeper trains to be introduced to the UK in more than 35 years and the first new locomotive-hauled carriages to be introduced since the end of the Mark 4 production run in 1992.

The first carriages arrived in the UK in January after travelling from the Velim Test Centre in the Czech Republic, where mandatory trials were conducted.

Caledonian Sleeper’s new trains director Magnus Conn said: “Taking some of the new carriages out on the network for testing marks an exciting phase in our development programme.

“The purpose is to monitor the interaction between vehicle and track, and to check ride comfort in a variety of suspension states and speeds.

“As testing progresses onto the West Coast Main Line later this month, we will be conducting a variety of tests including running at up to 110mph.”

Other operators are viewing these tests with interest.

With the cutbacks to the electrification programme, and the need to retain dieselpowered traction, attention is returning to the venerable HST sets. Actually a loco-hauled train, with a class 43 locomotive at each end, one option is to exchange the Mark 3 carriages with new Mark 5s.

The locomotives were reengined only ten years ago, so there is plenty of life left in them, but the carriages don’t comply with the latest accessibility regulations which come into force on 1 January 2020, so new coaches could be an easy fix if they could be delivered in time.

And, at about £10 million for an eight-coach (10-car with locos) set, a bit of a bargain!

NEWS

Rising costs led to electrification cancellations Rising costs and Network Rail's reclassification as a public body were the main factors behind the cancellation of three rail electrification schemes last year. So claims a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into its investigation of the Government's decision to cancel three major electrification projects in July last year.

The Department for Transport (DfT) initially identified 23 projects that could be cancelled or deferred to save money.

It then ranked the projects based on potential savings, value for money, reputational damage and the impact cancellation would have on passengers and the supply chain.

Transport secretary Chris Grayling chose to cancel schemes to electrify the Great Western main line between Cardiff and Swansea, the Midland main line north of Kettering to Sheffield and the Oxenholme to Windermere line in the Lake District.

The announcement was met with heavy criticism, but Grayling defended the decision, claiming that electrification was no longer necessary and that bi-mode or alternative fuel trains could deliver the same passenger benefits without the disruption. Yet the NAO report notes that Grayling was advised that bi-mode

rolling stock with the required speed and acceleration did not exist.

The NAO concluded it was the combination of rising costs and Network Rail’s funding constraints that ultimately led to the decision to drop the projects.

Cancelling the three projects is estimated to have saved up to £105 million in CP5 and a further £1.4 billion in CP6 (20192024).

The report suggests that it is too early to determine whether it is possible to deliver the benefits of electrification without electrifying the lines, but it did point out some of the disadvantages of using bi-mode trains instead of electric units, including increased track wear and higher energy and train maintenance costs.

The NAO said it was uncertain how much the new trains will cost but that the Secretary of State has suggested that it will be cheaper than pursuing electrification.

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

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

Locomotive Workshop £1.5M 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 Contact Keven Parker on 07816 283949 / 0121 4528717 / 0207 9839039 Email: Keven.parker@jobson-james.co.uk

• A small niche but highly skilled locomotive and rolling stock maintenance business also acting as a small ROSCO. • It was established that their insurance had not been reviewed properly for some years and that their activities were not properly insured.

• Jobson James Rail identified these gaps in cover and presented a broking presentation to rail industry insurers to negotiate a 40% reduction in Liability premiums.

CRITICAL UNINSURED RISKS NOW INSURED

£1.5M TURNOVER

10-PAGE

R OL L I NG S T OCK

INSURERS

DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY

RISK REPORT TO

PUBLIC / PRODUCT LIABILITY

40% SAVING OF LIABILITY PREMIUM

COMPETITIVE PREMIUMS SOUGHT

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage.

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

JobsonJames_Advert_01.12.2015_B_Amended.indd 5

10:34 Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | 15/12/2015 May 2018

9

FEATURE

STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN

10

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

C

hange is a fact of life to which we often develop a resistance, particularly as we get older. Despite its embedded role in the modern world, 10 per cent of UK households still didn’t have the internet in 2017, mostly those with occupants aged 65 or over, while 27 per cent of adults had no mobile connection via a smartphone. For most of us, an offline existence in the 21st century is unfathomable, even if we might occasionally crave one.

It was a similar story when the last great social revolution came to Britain in the 1830s - that of the railway. Some saw the opportunities and embraced them enthusiastically; others opposed the blight it would inflict on our landscape and the prospect of undesirables being empowered to move about.

And then there was the havoc wreaked during construction as drunken, marauding navvies shattered the tranquillity enjoyed by delicate villagers. In that context, ‘no pain, no gain’ is an impossible sell.

Ignorance promotes fear, and there was a lot of it about in the railway’s early days. Tunnels were perceived as death traps. “The furnace of the engine soon renders the air unfit for breathing,” claimed several newspapers in an 1834 article on Robert Stephenson’s proposed London & Birmingham Railway (L&BR), now known as the West Coast main line. Although shafts were proposed for its longer tunnels, “We are not aware whether the sufficiency of such an expedient for the purposes of ventilation has yet been ascertained by experiment.” Doom mongers were plentiful.

Not in my back yard

Like other towns along its route, Northampton did not want the railway and vigorous opposition to it was marshalled. Members of the House of Lords threw out the Parliamentary Bill in July 1832, asserting that “the promoters had not made out such a case as would warrant the forcing of the proposed railway through the lands and property of so great a proportion of dissentient landowners and proprietors.” There was no doubt where the power resided back then.

Undeterred, Stephenson surveyed a new alignment around the west side of the town, resulting in Royal Assent being granted a year later. With it came the need for Kilsby tunnel which, at 2,423 yards, would be the longest yet driven for a railway. Joseph Nowell & Sons secured the contract to build it in May 1835 at a cost of £98,988, and resident engineer Charles Lean laid the last brick on 21 June 1838. The intervening three years brought challenges, tragedy, heroism and two unique features.

PHOTOGRAPHY: FOUR BY THREE

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

FEATURE

Go with the flow Some idea of the likely ground conditions were already known thanks to the engineers of the Grand Union Canal who had pushed a tunnel through the same ridge 40 years earlier. Trial pits were also excavated, generally revealing Lias shale with a few beds of rock; dry in some places, whilst elsewhere there was a considerable quantity of water.

Nothing untoward had been indicated, so it came as a severe blow when quicksand was encountered in the second of the working shafts, especially as Stephenson had plotted a course to avoid this known local difficulty. Further investigations discovered the sand to be extensive at tunnel level, shaped like a flat-bottomed basin beneath a bed of clay and cropping out on one side of the hill. The trial pits had missed it.

The impact of this discovery was immediate as the workings flooded, almost leading to the tunnel’s abandonment. Attempts were made to construct lengths of the brick lining from a raft on which men and materials were floated into position. To escape one rapid inundation, an engineer swam to the base of a shaft, towing the raft and its occupants behind him with a rope held between his teeth. The stress of it all proved too much for Nowell, who took to his bed and passed away in January 1836, leaving the L&BR to deliver the rest of the project itself.

(Left) The staircase linking the crash deck with a doorway in the protection wall.

Seven more shafts were sunk - timber cylinders being assembled to hold back the sand - and, on George Stephenson’s recommendation, pumping engines were installed. Possessing a collective power of 160 horses, they operated around-the-clock for eight months, removing 2,000 gallons of water every minute from an average depth of 120 feet.

Under this protection, engineering operations continued at numerous points along the tunnel.

The thickness of the lining was increased from the planned 18 inches to more than 2 feet. In the wetter areas, bricks were washed clean of their cement within moments of it being applied so straw was used to deflect the water’s ingress.

(Above) Scaffolders erect the support structures for the crash deck.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

11

12

FEATURE

(Above) The shaft is 60 feet in diameter providing sufficient space for the crash deck support structures.

Conditions for both miner and bricklayer must have been hideous and the dangers unsurprisingly took their toll, claiming 26 of the 1,250 men involved - a death rate of 1 in 48. Not helping matters was the bizarre recklessness of some navvies - presumably fuelled by alcohol - who attempted to jump, one after another, across the mouth of a shaft. Two or three succumbed to the inevitable.

And breathe…

Although ten working shafts were retained for ventilation, Stephenson must have entertained doubts as to whether these would provide sufficient airflow to ensure passenger comfort. His solution might seem excessive with the benefit of hindsight, but perhaps it was more about overcoming public perceptions than any genuine assessment of risk.

In May 1836, work got underway on the first of two vast shafts, 132 feet deep and 20 yards in diameter.

Its lining was formed in sections - 10 feet in depth and up to 12 feet long - which were built in trenches dug sequentially around the circumference. Once one ring had been completed, the material within it was excavated and the process repeated below until the requisite depth had been obtained. It took over a year to reach the bottom. Comprising more than a million bricks, the walls are 3 feet thick and weigh 4,034 tons. Its sibling - 800 yards further south - is 100 feet deep.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

On 20 August 1838, the directors and their friends breakfasted at Birmingham station before heading south on the first ever rail journey to London Euston.

They paused at ‘The Great Shaft’, which no doubt took their breath away - rather the opposite of what was intended. There to cheer them on - perched high above - were some of the men who had driven Kilsby tunnel at a final cost of around £320,000.

According to one of the engineers, the shafts “are perfect masterpieces of brickwork, and are found fully to answer the purpose for which they were intended, leaving the tunnel entirely free from any offensive vapour immediately after the transit of each train, and their magnitude can only be estimated by standing in the tunnel and looking upwards.”

Those who erected scaffolding for recent brickwork repairs in the shaft had the opportunity to do just that.

Hands on That project first appeared on AMCO’s radar in autumn 2016 as part of its LNW South CP5 Renewals framework with Network Rail. Works to the lining within the tunnel itself were also planned.

(Below) The scaffold was needed for a full programme of brickwork repairs in the shaft, the staircase providing full-height access from the crash deck to the top of the turret.

FEATURE Initially the company was asked to determine the condition of both large ventilation shafts - Nos. 11 and 12 - which involved specialist engineers from XEIAD carrying out tactile surveys by rope access during four Saturday night ‘Rules of the Route’ possessions. While the outputs of these were a detailed examination including scheme drawings, budget constraints meant that repairs were prioritised in the deeper shaft where defects were greater in number.

Generally, AMCO’s preferred means of access for shaft repairs is to install a cradle, suspended from above. But the castellated shaft turrets at Kilsby are Grade II* listed, which would have created difficulties in terms of tying in a scaffold from which to support the winches. Also, the cradle would have been colossal - probably not what you’d want to be hovering over the West Coast main line.

The only other practical option was a full scaffold, bringing every part of the brickwork within touching distance. Network Rail agreed with this approach.

Four scaffolding contractors submitted prices; Abbi Access Services got the job.

Ups and downs Abbi commissioned RDG Engineering to design the scaffold and a work scheme whereby it was erected in two phases. The first required low-level structures to be built either side of the railway from which a crash deck would span the two tracks, together with a staircase on the shaft’s east

elevation to a sealed doorway in the protection wall at ground level which AMCO reopened. This work was progressed in Saturday night possessions with the overhead line equipment isolated, materials being transported by RRV from the main compound, located a mile south of the tunnel.

Thereafter, the remaining scaffold could be assembled in what effectively was a high street environment - safely separated from the railway, all the components being lowered by hoist from a secondary compound squeezed between the shaft and the adjacent A5.

(Above) The Grade II* listed shaft turret and secondary compound.

keeping critical infrastructure safe Specialist Engineers for the management of difficult to access structures Diving I Rope Access I Confined Spaces I UAV/ROV xeiad.com

01884 842942

42@xeiad.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

13

14

FEATURE

KILSBY TUNNEL Structure No: LEC1/258 Length: 2,423 yards Built: 1834-1838 Engineer: Robert Stephenson Ventilation shafts: 12 (inc two 60 feet in diameter) Hidden/blind shafts: 7?

Gradient: 1:870 falling northwards

(Above) The crash deck and (right) the CL25 brackets which carry the infill towers.

Constructed using Plettac Metrix equipment, the scaffold was founded on timber base pads laid on the ballast, an approach designed by COWI UK following ground investigations. The crash deck comprising X-beams and support transoms overlain with scaffold boards and plywood - was carried by seven towers on the Up side and eight on the Down, the latter being required due to the presence of two signalling cabinets.

The deck sat 780mm above the 600mm OLE exclusion zone, four temporary bonds being applied - to a design by PBH - for earthing purposes between the scaffold and OLE stanchions. A central vent allowed air pushed upwards by passing trains to escape without lifting the deck, although their entry into the tunnel was still felt by anyone standing on it.

During the possessions, Abbi built three of the towers to full height and used them to support the staircase by means of ties and diagonal wind bracing. Thereafter the remaining towers were constructed radially to create 25 single-lift rings, each two metres in height. The whole structure was tied into the brickwork using M16 threaded rods, secured by Minova Lockset resin, which were then subjected to load testing.

Directly above the tracks, three infill towers had to be erected at both ends of the shaft, initially standing on the deck. However, after two lifts had been constructed, pairs of CL25 brackets and ladder beams were installed to transfer the load from each tower into the masonry.

Take two Having spent many weeks establishing the means of access, the repairs themselves were remarkably routine: breaking out and recasing areas of hollow brickwork (accounting for about one-fifth of the shaft’s surface area), extensive repointing and the

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

removal of 180 years’ worth of accumulated soot and vegetation. It’s the sort of high volume activity that’s undertaken every midweek night without anyone batting an eyelid.

But what made this job spectacular were its setting and the complexity of the platform on which the workforce toiled. The red-brick shaft turret offered no clues as to the sight that would be revealed after walking through the innocuous doorway in its side.

Dave Thomas, AMCO’s contracts manager, endured a sleepless night or two. “As soon as you start scaffolding over the West Coast main line with a linespeed of 110mph and live overheads - in midweek day shifts while trains are running, you need a lot of confidence in your design, in your scaffolder and in God!” he reflected.

Network Rail’s project manager, Ellen Dean, said: “The successful installation of the full scaffold enabled our team to conduct additional examinations. This has resulted in Network Rail including additional scope into the repairs, reducing the maintenance in the shaft as well as creating efficiencies for the client, and reducing the requirement to revisit the shaft for many more years to come.”

Northampton’s refuseniks succumbed to the railway age in 1845 when the London & Birmingham drove a cross-country route to Peterborough. Whilst several later tunnels have full-width shafts - Morley and Bramhope being examples from the 1840s none boast Kilsby’s dimensions. This is a project that will only be repeated when the tunnel’s other big shaft receives the same attention.

Total Rail Solutions:

TotalPlant Rail Solutions: The Right For The Right Job

talTotal Rail Solutions: Rail Solutions: The Right Plant For The Right Job

e Right The Right Plant Plant For The ForRight The Right Job Job Total Rail Solutions (TRS) is the UK’s leading TRS are qualified to manage your project provider of fully managed safety critical rail from start to finish, supplying all the plant services. Offering the full range of Plant, labour and support services needed plant solutions from concept to delivery, Tel: 01962 to achieve a successful outcome for your Tel: 01962 711642 711642 TRS are able to supply ALL the resources E-mail: project (no matter how big or how small) info@totalrailsolutions.co.uk E-mail: info@totalrailsolutions.co.uk www.totalrailsolutions.co.uk you need in one location. be it time, specification or budget. www.totalrailsolutions.co.uk

Tel: 01962 711642

E-mail: info@totalrailsolutions.co.uk

www.totalrailsolutions.co.uk

16

FEATURE

Time and tide

STUART MARSH

S

triding proudly across the River Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal at the so-called Runcorn Gap is a stupendous railway bridge. Not as well known, perhaps, as some of the magnificent coastal railway bridges and viaducts, it is nevertheless impressive in its setting, immediately adjacent to the (some might say) equally impressive Silver Jubilee Bridge - the through-arch road bridge that carries the A533. Now, a ÂŁ5 million scheme is underway to refurbish the railway bridge structure.

Constructed between 1863 and 1868, the Runcorn railway bridge, also known as the Britannia bridge or even, locally, as the Queen Ethelfleda viaduct, was constructed for the London & North Western Railway. The contractors were Brassey & Ogilvie, working to a design by William Baker. All of the ironwork was supplied by Cochrane Grove & Co.

The Runcorn Railway Bridge rubs shoulders with the Silver Jubilee Bridge.

Lattice As constructed, the bridge had six wrought-iron doubleweb lattice girders that form three spans each 93 metres long. The wrought iron was replaced by steel in the early 20th century.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Each pair of trusses is 8.5 metres high and is linked by top and bottom box-girder chords.

They support a metal deck that carries the twin-track overheadelectrified railway. There is a clearance height of 22.8 metres above the high-water mark.

Each girder contains 711 tonnes

of iron and is fastened by 48,115 rivets. An unusual construction method was employed in that, rather than lifting completed girders into position, they were built up piece by piece in situ.

The approach viaducts (exclusive to the present scheme) are major structures in their own right. To the north is a curving 49-arch viaduct, then a short embankment, followed by a 16-arch viaduct. A gradient of 1 in 114 was necessary so that sufficient shipping clearance height could be obtained under the central spans (The Admiralty had insisted on a clearance of 75 feet).

FEATURE

PHOTOGRAPHY: FOUR BY THREE

On the south bank there is a similarly constructed viaduct of 33 arches. All of the viaduct piers, the bridge abutments and the bridge central piers are of sandstone, with the viaduct arches being of brick.

The bridge lies on the 8.5mile line that connects Weaver junction with Ditton junction, which today forms the Liverpool branch of the West Coast main line (WCML).

Buckingham Group After 150 years of service, this Grade II* listed structure was requiring extensive maintenance. Buckingham Group Contracting was awarded the work as main contractor, in turn making use of Taziker Industrial, Sea Training International and Carmet Tug as subcontractors.

The scheme is currently in phase two of three. Phase 1, also undertaken by Buckingham Group Contracting, involved intrusive surveys to the main bridge piers - coring work as part of the development for Phases 2 and 3.

Phase 2 is a year long project due for completion in July 2018. It involves mechanical repairs and waterproofing of the east and west bottom cords along all three spans. The total area to be prepared and repainted is 560 square metres.

Attention is also being given to the cantilevered walkway that runs along the east side of the bridge. Formerly a right of way that was closed to the public in 1965, this footpath remains important as a walking route that gives access to the bridge spans.

The current work involves the removal, using bespoke lifting frames, of the cantilevered walking route’s cast iron parapets across all three main spans. There are 94 parapet bays in total, each 3.2 metres long and formed

Each cast iron parapet element presents a 400kg lift.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

17

18

FEATURE Challenges

Corrosion has affected the cantilevered walkway supports and its oversail.

from five interlocking cast iron components - the top rail, two lattice panels, bottom rail and ‘bullnose’ with ornate cast iron posts between bays. The elements weigh between 100kg and 400kg each.

The recovered elements are taken off-site for refurbishment at a dedicated workshop near St Helens. Where elements are found to be too damaged for reuse, they are being replaced with new castings sourced from a foundry near Preston.

With the parapets removed, the walkway cantilevered beams and bottom chords have been grit blasted and repainted. Repairs to the steel cantilever brackets have included the removal and replacement of the end plates, so that the parapet post supports can be strengthened.

This has required the erection of three 93-metrelong underslung suspended scaffolds, which are encapsulated for the grit blasting and painting to protect the marine environment. It is

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

estimated that 30 tonnes of grit will be used to complete the blasting across the three spans.

Installation of the suspended scaffolding was particularly challenging. Working 20 metres above the tidal River Mersey, with full exposure to the weather, made things difficult.

The south span’s suspended scaffold had to be designed with reduced headroom to accommodate cargo ships using the Manchester Ship Canal.

The paint system being applied is an M24 paint system (two-pack epoxy) with a polyurethane top coat that has a matt finish to match existing colours.

Because the bridge is so exposed to the elements, high winds passing over and through the underside of the structure have governed activities such as lifting and scaffolding works.

Chinstraps are the norm when working on the bridge so people don’t lose their hats!

A wind-monitoring station is installed on the structure, linked to the site office in order to provide wind-speed alarms.

Handheld monitors are deployed too. In addition to the winter winds, heavy rain and ice/snow have restricted the works. A relatively calm day in the site compound can be misleading, with very different conditions existing on the bridge structure.

This ornate bridge has a pair of large castellated turrets at each end and smaller turrets linking the spans. The story is that the southern bridge abutment was built on the site of a Saxon burh (fort) erected in 915 by Queen Ethelfleda (or more correctly Æthelflæd, oldest daughter of Alfred the Great and herself ruler of Mercia from 911 to 918) - hence the local name for the bridge.

The castellation of the turrets is said to be a nod to that.

All of the turrets have required cleaning and waterproofing.

Cast-iron drainage runs from

FEATURE the main turrets to the bearing shelf were also cleared and renewed, in some cases requiring the use of a ropeaccess team.

A 600kg cast-iron navigation bell, located on the west side of the structure, is to be removed for off-site refurbishment and placement in a public open space. However, removal presented problems because of difficult access. The solution, scheduled to take place on 27 May, is to use a helicopter to lift the bell during an already planned 54-hour disruptive possession.

Meanwhile, down at river level, the timber fenders and associated steelwork that protect the piers have deteriorated and require renewal. This will be accomplished during the summer of 2018 using a specialist barge. Only a narrow time window, between 1 June and 31 August, is available to undertake these works as the intertidal flats and marshes of

the Mersey Estuary provide winter breeding grounds for thousands of wading birds.

The barge will be located on spud jacks in the river and will work on the fenders depending on the water level. The works will be planned around the tides and will involve 24-hour working. The fenders are being renewed using sustainably sourced Ekki hardwood an extremely hard wood originating in subtropical Africa.

Bore The large tidal range and flow, a feature of the Runcorn Gap, has presented difficulties.

The tide rises over a two-hour period each day, but then takes ten hours to go back out again.

With the water level ranging from 0 metres to 6 metres in less than two hours, this makes the area a very hazardous environment to work in and around.

Buckingham Contracting has employed Sea Training International to provide site

water rescue for both the river and canal locations. This is required whenever any leading-edge works are being undertaken, in order to mitigate the risk of someone falling in.

With quick sand and soft mud exposed when the tide is out and then a tidal bore when the tide comes in, the site teams have needed to be stood down for around 45 minutes each

Renewing the timber fenders at water level requires a rescue boat.

Multi-Disciplinary Rail construction services include: 

Rail engineering; civil & structural engineering



Stations and Passenger Area construction and refurbishment



Platform construction and extensions



Permanent Way, Construction, Raising & Lowering



Bridge Structures & Retaining Walls, including Piling



Lineside Structures, Foundations, Culverts



Earthworks, Embankments &Cuttings



Embankment construction, stabilisation & protection



Railway track beds & ballast operations



Major re-signalling schemes



Troughing Route



Station car parks; at grade, decked & multi-storey



Depots & Trainwash facilities

All Operations are undertaken under a full, Network Rail approved, Principal Contractors Licence (PCL) and all appropriate Link-Up product code registrations.

Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd. Silverstone Road, Stowe, Buckingham MK18 5LJ Tel: 01280 823355; E-mail: bd@buckinghamgroup.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

19

20

FEATURE Ramsar sites are designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, which is named after the city of Ramsar in Iran where the Convention was signed in 1971.

The imposing northern portal is scaffolded for remedial works.

(Below) A lifting frame is used when removing the walkway components.

(Inset) Skip lift.

day when carrying out leading edge works. This is because any rescue attempt during that time would be unsafe for the Sea Training International team.

Tight fit This project has also been made more difficult because of the limited operating space on and around the structure.

The team has a narrow walking route along the eastern side of the structure, which has to be used to carry all materials and equipment to site.

The walking route is shared with a third-party cable route carrying an 11kV cable between Widnes and Runcorn, which limits working space further.

To ease the burden, the team has designed and fabricated a number of trolleys to move materials along the walkway.

A specialised lifting frame has also been fabricated to lift out the cast iron parapet elements, of which the heaviest is around 400kg. After using the trolleys to transport each cast iron element back to the loading bays at each end of the structure, all equipment and

materials are hoisted down to ground level, some 20 metres below. This is a very slow process and involves rigorous lifting techniques to minimise manual handling.

Besides the risk to staff of working next to an operational electrified railway, working at height and within restricted space has been a normal part of the day-to-day challenges that the staff have had to face.

The majority wear harnesses and are clipped on during some of their activities, whilst trained rope-access staff have been brought in to work in otherwise inaccessible spaces, such as the bridge baffles, and to access the outer piers during possession working.

Consents During the early stages of the scheme, before works could commence on site, the project had to obtain a number of licences and consents. Runcorn Rail Bridge is a Grade II* listed structure and, due to the nature

of the bridge and its location, the consents process took around 12 months.

Approval of the proposed works was also required from the Marine Management Organisation. The Mersey Estuary is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and a Ramsar site. It is heavily protected so the pre-works surveys had to be very thorough.

Listed building consent via Halton Borough Council had to be obtained. Licences from Peel Ports for the Ship Canal were also required and it is necessary for Buckingham Group to keep in contact with the Harbour Master each day for ship movements on the canal, during which all works have to be stood down and hot works are not permitted to prevent sparks dropping onto passing ships.

As part of Phase 3 of the project, Buckingham Group is working on the Grip 3 (option selection) approval in principle for the bearing replacement.

This work is scheduled to take place in late CP6/early CP7 and will involve jacking up the span structures to access their bearings - clearly an involved undertaking on such an iconic listed bridge carrying the WCML into Liverpool. It should, however, see this great structure fit for another century and a half of supporting the WCML. Thanks to Will Metcalfe, project manager with Buckingham Group Contracting, for his help with this article.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

FEATURE

Learn more: www.geobrugg.com/slope

Kwik - Step Modular Platforms and Stairways

Lightweight FRP Minimal Groundwork Simple Assembly Available from Stock

TECCO® SYSTEM3 made of high-tensile steel wire

SUSTAINABLE SLOPE PROTECTION

Lookout Posts & Refuges

Geobrugg AG | Aachstrasse 11 | CH-8590 Romanshorn | www.geobrugg.com

Minimal Groundwork Simple Assembly Use Immediately Range from 12° to 45° Available from Stock

Galvanized Steel Stairways

www.kwik-step.com info@kwik-step.com

0117 929 1400

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

21

22

FEATURE

Easter

success!

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

Shotts.

Polmadie.

I

n its review of the work on the railway infrastructure over Christmas and the New Year, Rail Engineer reported (issue 160, February 2018) that 32,000 people worked at 3,000 sites to deliver £160 million of work. The work also brought about the usual crop of sensationalist headlines in the national and regional press. As early as October the Daily Star was predicting “Christmas CHAOS” - in capitals - while the Sun predicted that “Rail passengers face ‘worst ever’ Christmas delays”.

In London, the Standard said that the capital was “Braced for chaos” and the Birmingham Mail said that “Railway works could spell train chaos”.

The Oxford Mail at least tried a different approach. “No Silent Night - ‘Noisy railway work could ruin Christmas’ in Oxford” was its headline on 10 November.

It was all very familiar, and largely ill founded as plans went off without too many problems, replacement bus services were in place and, when commuters returned to work after the holidays, their trains ran to timetable.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Move forward to Easter and it was all very different. A Google search using similar terms failed to bring up any major headlines, the first being the Richmond and Twickenham Times which simply stated that “Major engineering works are

planned for South Western Railway over the Easter holidays”.

Why was the situation so different? Were no major works planned for the Easter holiday weekend?

In fact, they were. Although only half of the number of workers were mobilised 15,800 this time - they were still active on 3,000 worksites and delivered £118 million worth of engineering work.

20 projects were identified as RED through the Delivering Work Within Possessions (DWWP) standard, therefore

FEATURE carrying a greater risk of overrun and/or a more significant impact in the event of an overrun, down from 40 at Christmas. These included Bristol Area Resignalling works, track lowering works at Cheetham Hill as part of the North West Electrification programme (NWEP), alongside a number of significant track, maintenance and structure renewals across the country.

On this occasion, the holiday period was a brilliant success, with no attributed delay minutes despite the large portfolio of engineering works as every one was handed back on time (at Christmas only 98.6 per cent were). And while nine injuries were reported, they were all minor in nature and no time was lost as a result.

So what work was carried out in such a successful Easter programme? For a change, let’s look at it from North to South.

Shotts electrification Electrifying the line between Holytown junction and Midcalder junction will provide an additional electrified route between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Easter also saw the start of a ten-day blockade on the Shotts line for electrification work and a ÂŁ3.5 million transformation of Livingston South station that includes widening and extending its platforms.

Over Easter, OLE equipment was installed in the Midcalder junction area. The wire runs in the junction were energised and section proving completed, but the lines will remain blocked to electric traction until full energisation of the route takes place in October 2018.

Polmadie and Rutherglen renewals

Polmadie.

The Polmadie and Rutherglen Signalling Renewals (PARR) project involves the renewal or refurbishment of signalling and telecoms equipment in the WSSC Polmadie workstation control area, the renewal of S&C units at Rutherglen East, West and Central junctions, and the remodelling of the electrification system to align with the new track configuration.

The Easter disruptive works were a critical stage in the lead up to the commissioning of the

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

23

24

FEATURE Preston station.

new OLE layout. There was also follow up welding, stressing and tamping from track stage 1 renewal of plain line and new 980 points.

Motherwell North signalling renewal

Motherwell.

To renew life expired signalling assets & relay based interlockings and relocate the signalling control from Motherwell Signalling Centre to the West of Scotland Signalling Centre (WSSC). This includes new lineside signals, telephones & cables, troughing, location cases, Westlock and WestCAD. The Easter disruptive works were the second of three separate ‘Workstation’ phases: Newton (commissioned April 2017), Whifflet (Easter 2018) and Motherwell (August 2018). All of the works were completed as planned and included the closure of Motherwell Signalling Centre panels 2 and 3 and transfer of control to Whifflet Workstation in the West of Scotland Signalling Centre and the commissioning of new interlockings and trackside equipment.

Polmadie workstation and Yoker East workstation fringe were handed back on Saturday morning and Edinburgh Cowlairs workstation fringe on Sunday morning.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Larkfield S&C reballast A 76-hour possession was required to reballast two sets of points between Glasgow Central and Carstairs on the West Coast main line.

The S&C panels were disc cut and then removed using PEM self-propelled laying and renewal gantries. After excavation and the application of new stone, the panels were relayed and the track dressed, welded, stressed and tamped. The Up Clydsdale line reopened at its 40mph line speed while the Down road had a TSR imposed of 50mph.

Preston station stressing Delivered by the works delivery unit, track stressing works in Preston station were part of the ongoing Preston to

Blackpool North line upgrade.

This involved rebuilding 11 bridges, remodelling 11 station platforms, replacing 11km of track, upgrading drainage and installing 84 new signals.

Only the station stressing works were classified as Red, as they could have caused operational problems on the West Coast main line if they hadn’t been handed back on time after Easter. The Blackpool line was actually closed, so those works weren’t classified.

As it happened, the opening of the line was put back three weeks due to weather conditions including ‘the Beast from the East’ and the breakdown of critical machinery.

The line finally reopened on Monday 16 April.

FEATURE

Cheetham Hill

Halton Curve

As part of the NWEP Phase 5 electrification, the Up and Down Rochdale Fast lines (Platforms 5 and 6 Manchester Victoria) were lowered under Cheetham Hill road bridge during a 100-hour possession to allow for the future installation of overhead line equipment (OLE). This was the final piece of advanced civils works for NWEP Phase 5, which will allow for journey time improvements between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge.

A total of 200 metres of track was lowered, 2,300 tonnes of spoil removed and 1,920 tonnes of new ballast installed, along with additional work. Buried services and obstructions were encountered during excavation, which therefore took longer than had been anticipated. However, this was managed within the programme.

The Halton Curve connects the Chester to Warrington line at Frodsham Junction with the Liverpool Crewe line at Halton Junction. During the four-day Easter blockade, works were undertaken to install a new crossover and renew the turnout at Halton Junction. This will enable bidirectional train movements on the Halton Curve, as a similar new crossover was installed at Frodsham Junction back in November 2017. The completion of the overall project in May 2018 will support the introduction of a new direct passenger service between Liverpool and Chester via this curve.

A progressive assurance check was used to enable 90mph line speed handback on the Up main - this was a first for the S&C North Alliance Crewe depot. Once tested, the points

were secured out of use, ready to be commissioned by the Weaver Wavertree project during the early May Bank Holiday.

Excavation of the Down Main exposed an unidentified water mains pipe with hairline fractures. United Utilities was contacted to provide support with the repair of the damaged pipework.

Cheetham Hill.

Bristol Area Signalling Renewals and Enhancements The BASRE project is part of the Western Mainline Signalling Renewals programme, which is an enabling project for the Great Western Mainline Electrification Scheme. BASRE will introduce AC-immune signalling equipment and relock and re-control to Thames Valley Signalling Centre (TVSC).

Stage 4 was the largest stage, as it included Bristol Temple Meads station and the complex junctions and depots within the commissioning footprint.

It was the largest signalling commissioning undertaken by Network Rail, involving over 2,240 people over the 123-hour commissioning period, and introduced: »» 355 SEUs (signal equivalent units); »» 146 signals; »» 130 point ends; »» 184 location cases »» Five new REBs (relocatable

Halton Curve.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

25

26

FEATURE Canonbury.

equipment buildings); »» Four new power supply points; »» Over a quarter of a million metres of new cable; »» All controlled from a new desk at Thames Valley Signalling Centre, Didcot (TVSC).

Canonbury Up plain line

Gidea Park.

The single-track freightonly Canonbury Curve runs alongside Emirates Stadium and through Canonbury tunnel, connecting the North London line with the East Coast main line at Finsbury Park. Over Easter 2018, IP Track replaced 106 metres of track and a total of 588 metres of steel sleepers.

During a 52-hour possession, different methods of working were used due to the awkward location. In one section, the old rails were burned into six-metre lengths and lifted out, with new rails being installed using McCulloch handling machines.

In another, panels were cut out and removed by a Kirow train, the ballast was excavated and replaced using RRVs and a bulldozer, and new track was laid using an NTC (new track construction) machine.

All planned works were completed and the possession handed back to operational traffic on time at the published handback speed of 20mph TSR. A post-handback issue with a signal fault was rectified and caused no delays to operational traffic.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Gidea Park S&C renewal Between Gidea Park and Harold Wood stations, IP Track replaced seven point ends and four fixed diamonds in a likefor-like renewal, along with 343 metres of plain line track in a 98-hour possession.

The programme was split into two stages - the Down Main and Up Electric formed Stage 1 and the Down Electric was classified as Stage 2. Existing track was scrapped out, excavated and new base stone dropped prior to relaying. New panels were installed using two Kirow cranes, after which top ballast was applied using autohoppers before two Matisa tampers prepared the track for a hand back with a 50mph TSR.

Great Eastern OLE renewals This long-running project is replacing the fixed termination OLE from Liverpool Street to Chelmsford with a modern, high-reliability auto-tensioned system. When complete, the project will have installed a

total of 345 new OLE wire runs, including new support structures and associated registration assemblies.

Three wire runs were installed over Easter, one through Ilford station, one on Ilford flyover and one on the Up Electric to Down Electric crossover, totalling 4.26km. This has created a continuous 39km section of auto-tensioned OLE between Ilford and Chelmsford.

Kensal Green plain line This renewal was on the Fast lines between Camden and Wembley on the West Coast main line - with the majority of the renewal site within Kensal Green tunnel.

The possession was planned for 78 hours and a total of 620 metres of the Down Fast Outside line was to have been removed and excavated, then replaced after a geotextile had first been laid.

Due to significant water table flooding issues, worsened by the rain, the

FEATURE

engineering decision was made that the depth of the dig was reduced over 80 metres of the site and the sand installation was curtailed.

Despite these issues, the full length of the site was renewed and handed back on time at 60mph, as opposed to the published 50mph TSR, due to quality of the installation.

New Cross Gate to Brockley Working in a platform, with tight clearances in some areas, a 51-hour possession was required to replace some 800 metres of track on this busy commuter route into London.

Once the conductor rail had been removed, the track was removed and replaced by conventional means using a mobile flash butt welder. An RRV failed as it was leaving the site, causing the possession to be handed back 20 minutes late. However, no operational traffic was delayed, and the site was actually cleared for a handback at 60mph linespeed instead of the 50mph TSR that had been anticipated.

Fairfield underline bridge replacement Fairfield bridge is a single span wrought iron underline bridge located four miles 1529 yards from the country end of Wandsworth Town station.

Consisting of simply supported wrought-iron girders supporting rail timbers, the structure was in poor condition and deemed life expired.

The bridge deck replacement was delivered by One Team Wessex, a Network Rail and Osborne collaboration. A total of 45 operatives worked within the replacement possession, which totalled approximately 2,250 man-hours.

The existing bridge deck was replaced with four new, single span, U-type decks (steel main girders with composite floor), founded on new precast concrete cill beams. The bridge was renewed by a 45-strong team during a 99-hour possession through the use of one 750-tonne mobile land crane, one engineering train, one tamper, three RRVs and four mini-diggers.

The four newly installed tracks were reinstated on ballast and then tamped.
Lines were opened to traffic under planned 50mph TSRs on the morning of 3 April. The site team was able to complete additional track welds that were originally planned for a follow-up possession whilst handing back three and a half hours early.

This helped to de-risk future stressing and welding works which allowed the line to be brought up to a full line speed of 60mph on 9 April 2018 (week 2).

Brockley.

Victoria Phase 2b, Sutton and Wimbledon The Victoria Phase 2b project was initiated to re-lock and re-control the existing lifeexpired interlockings at Sutton and Wimbledon and renew all lineside signalling assets in the Sutton area. During a 99hr possession, the project successfully re-controlled the new signalling from Victoria ASC to Three Bridges ROC, removed redundant signalling assets, brought into use new signalling equipment and carried out the change over from track circuits to axle counters in the Sutton Interlocking Area.

In total, 70 new signals and 102 signal equipment cases were brought into use.

Recovery of the redundant equipment was delayed by heavy rain and strong winds,

Fairfield.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

27

28

FEATURE Shotts.

so that work had to be rescheduled to maintain the final handover time. A hand trolley derailed and had to be recovered, although no damage was caused.

Post commissioning, three separate equipment-related issues have resulted in passenger service delays. These have been addressed and investigations are ongoing to understand the root cause.

Sevenoaks tunnel

Sevenoaks tunnel.

And finally, or most southerly, work continued in Sevenoaks tunnel. Built in the 1860s, the Victorian tunnel is one of the longest main line tunnels in Britain. Water has been a major issue since construction, causing track, signalling and power supply to deteriorate quickly, leading to faults, delays and sometimes speed restrictions.

Reported in Rail Engineer after Christmas (issue 160, February 2018), the work is being undertaken in stages over several holiday closures to replace blocked sections of tunnel drainage on a critical section of the route. Over Easter, the team overachieved, replacing more drainage in the central six-foot than had been anticipated.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Lasting legacy Closing sections of the railway is never popular, but is essential as Network rail strives to modernise the railway and make it more reliable for years to come. Doing this in holiday periods reduces the impact on commuters, but it does disrupt travel plans by families who are trying to get together. As there seems little chance of a suitable alternative being found, rail closures will probably continue to be a feature of national holidays for some time to come.

However, the difficulties faced by passengers is well recognised. Martin Frobisher, route managing director for the London North Western route at Network Rail, said:

“There is never a good time to carry out work that affects services but we worked closely with the train operators for it to cause the least amount of disruption.”

Meliha Duymaz, Network Rail’s route managing director for Anglia, echoed this sentiment: “Our engineers successfully carried out crucial upgrades over Easter which will significantly improve journeys. This work is important to support the growth in passenger numbers and to improve reliability as part of our Railway Upgrade Plan. I’d like to thank passengers for their patience while we carried out this work.”

So that was Easter. Next up May Day!

“Excellence in Engineering”

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

30

FEATURE

CLIVE KESSELL

A General Perspective

F

or the rail industry, how to replace the ageing GSM-R radio networks is an ever-present challenge. Thoughts over the past ten years have progressed from 3G to 4G LTE but increasingly nowadays to the prospect of the soon to emerge 5G technology. With its huge increase in data capacity, a 5G rail network should be able to meet all rail usage requirements including operational, commercial and passenger communication needs.

A paper given to the IRSE back in December 2017 jointly

by Rail Engineer writers Clive Kessell and Paul Darlington looked at the options for replacing GSM-R and concluded that 5G was likely to be the solution when GSM-R obsolescence becomes a real problem in the mid-2020s.

But just how far off is a general roll out of 5G networks? A recent seminar held in London organised and hosted by Cambridge Wireless explored the present position from three different perspectives: »» A mobile operator’s view; »» The emerging business models and trends; »» An equipment provider’s view.

From these emerged some surprising elements and it is clear that a number of conflicts of interest remain to be resolved before, and indeed if, a united view can be agreed as to how 5G should be structured.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

The seminar focussed primarily on the forthcoming 5G public networks, and there was little mention of ‘mission critical’ services on which the railway and other industries such as the armed forces, the emergency services, nuclear power generation, essential utilities and others would need to be reassured. Nonetheless, the challenges within the public offering will have a bearing on how mission-critical services are structured if 5G is to be the technology of choice.

5G vision and characteristics The advent of 5G goes hand in hand with IT developments that require reliable and high bandwidth connectivity.

Foremost of these is the Internet of Things (IoT), but also the insatiable demand from the user community for ever-more applications to be available to end user devices. These culminate in a system that aims to provide i) between 10 and 100 times more connected devices, ii) 1000 times more data volumes, iii) up to 100 times end user data rates.

Connectivity of 10Gbit to end devices is a possibility.

To fulfil this, the vision is for a cloud computing architecture with software-defined networking. A Centralised Radio Access Network (C-RAN) would enable all suppliers to

FEATURE

access the cloud using clusters of LTE base stations. Uplink signals from multiple base stations optimise network configuration by selecting the best signals at a number of receivers, thus minimising the effect of interference from other operators.

Virtual networks for different user groups are capable of being created, by the concept of ‘network slicing’, to enable a degree of separation within the cloud. Small cells are envisaged, which not only means much-improved radio connectivity within buildings but would allow end user devices to connect directly with each other. This aligns with the concept of ‘mobile edge computing’ that pushes the core functionality out to cell sites. User equipment would typically connect to multiple cells.

All of this requires radio spectrum, meaning that everhigher frequencies are needed to fulfil the need - typically between 20 and 60GHz will be allocated.

5G technology development is substantially completed (up to release 15 on the standardisation programme with release 17 seen as the effective end point) and has reached the point whereby equipment will shortly be produced commercially.

A mobile operator’s view The BT/EE view, as put forward by Philip Bridge who has responsibility for network architecture, shares the vision for what 5G is capable of offering but has significant doubts as to how this will be realised. A new core will be needed to achieve the benefits of infrastructure decoupling, virtualisation within the cloud and the introduction of new services.

5G is being considered in three different ways; a ‘Network View’ a ‘Functional View’ and a ‘Deployment View’.

How to integrate these three perspectives is potentially very difficult. Currently, a silo mentality prevails in the supplier community, thus making development of a ‘common cloud’ something of an alien culture. There will also be a need to integrate 5G with the ‘long tail’ of legacy equipment in 2G, 3G and 4G networks and provide roaming between all of them. The need for interworking boxes may have to be considered although this is not a desirable way forward.

4G networks are already being built on a 5G basis, thus making the eventual solution easier. Even if established, the instrumentation and training required to achieve excellent network performance is not easy with a cloud-based architecture.

Methods used today for network

monitoring will not work for the 5G vision and thus a transition has to happen, but with no means of knowing how this can be achieved.

It is considered that very few vendors have the stature to build a network of this type and a multi-vendor solution may have to be forced by some form of legislation. Infrastructure sharing is a likely way forward with ‘Telco Grade’ networks setting the required standard. A combined service orchestration to break up the silos with a simpler but more stable architecture will need putting in place.

The goal is full interoperability between vendors A, B and C in both hardware and software, which will be difficult to mandate and manage in terms of who would be in control of exactly what. If not executed properly,

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

31

32

FEATURE

matters may become worse when compared to the present service provision, particularly in terms of faulting, maintenance and associated payments.

Whilst the technical elements are challenging, the contractual and pricing structures between the different service providers are going to be equally difficult.

The declared intention of catering for autonomous vehicles makes it essential that missioncritical services are encompassed within the cloud. Such services would require priority over other applications in public 5G networks, but exactly how this will be achieved and at what cost is a question still being posed.

Railways take note.

Emerging business models Having listened to the probing view from a mobile operator, a more upbeat message comes across from the ‘forward thinkers’ within the industry. Alan Carlton from InterDigital Europe posed the question as to the role of the Core and Edge elements of a 5G network, the latter being in the ascendency but recognising that the core will still be important. A service-based architecture (SBA) is emerging to satisfy both the IT and telecom requirements leading to a flexible data centre approach that somewhat blurs the core and edge debate.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Quality of service should be at the forefront of future thinking, says Mischa Dohler, professor in wireless communications at Kings College London, and at present it remains somewhat doubtful.

When comparing radio spectrum to Wi-Fi, the latter, according to statistical research, is more reliable, which is surprising since Wi-Fi operates in an unlicensed part of the spectrum. The development of radio networks has mirrored, to some degree, the architecture of 2G, which existed before the internet was invented, hence the problem.

One factor that stands out is that the UK is awash with fibre that is not being used efficiently.

Connecting this all together on a shared basis would be a big asset for future radio development, in that it would make networking that much more resilient.

Localised 5G services are already in being, the city of Bristol network trial being described by Dimitra Simeonidou from Bristol University. Offering both LTE 2.6GHz and Wi-Fi services, the network uses a combination of municipality and infrastructure owners as 5G neutral hosts.

Designed to be vendor agnostic, three suppliers NFV with an Open Source MANO platform, SDN with its NetOS controller and

Nokia’s Cloudband and NetAct controller - have each supplied products to create the network to produce cloud and radio platforms out to the extreme edge of the city. The system exists as a reality, but is there primarily to prove that a 5G architecture of slicing, convergence and collaborative hubs can be constructed.

The supplier’s perspective That suppliers are working hard to develop 5G equipment is not in doubt but the end game, in terms of what the products will deliver, is an ongoing conundrum. David Astuti from Huawei gave some predictions.

The customer experience should yield a 10-fold benefit with 15Gbit/user being possible. The efficiency of new application releases should reduce from typically six months to one week, although some delegates disputed this. Connectivity is expected to improve by a factor of five.

The ‘slicing’ concept will enable different slices to be used by different user groups. Typical of these will be autonomous driving (already mentioned), smart campus networks and home domestic controls.

Getting from the present to the future needs a migration strategy. A pragmatic way forward is to:

FEATURE i) Continue with 4G expansion but make this 5G ready; ii) Create standalone 5G core networks based around a network service architecture; iii) Merge these to create a converged core 5G network.

2018 should see the first standalone core networks introduced in readiness for such events as the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, with converged networks not likely to appear until sometime after that, except for local applications.

Additional considerations It became clear that 5G, from a technical perspective, is making good progress, but the commercialisation of 5G services will need much more work and much more openness between suppliers.

The subject of cyber security will need to be a key priority, with Nokia believing that this will be a fundamental element of the core network.

5G must be able to handle traffic from legacy networks of 3G, 4G and even 2G origin.

Just how this will be achieved is not clear. The Internet of Things and particularly the Industrial Internet of Things will be dominant requirements in 5G connectivity.

Spectrum allocation is akin to a power supply - if it is not there, the system will not work.

5G services will use a wide range of frequencies as it is envisaged that 5G products will connect to services rather than individual radio channels.

Unlicensed spectrum will be part of this - local city networks will likely operate in unlicensed bands - bringing its own management challenges.

Mission critical services will, in time, inevitably move to 5G, so arrangements need to be made for these. Special facilities such as group call, push to talk and location dependence operation, important for both emergency services and rail operations, are part of the requirement.

Convincing the safety authorities that a common user 5G radio bearer is suitable for control and command will be a sensitive issue for the rail industry authorities. Whether or not rail can have a dedicated ‘slice’ with its own allocation of spectrum remains to be seen.

Attending a radio seminar not focussed just on rail was an eye opener, as it put the rail interests into perspective. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two years or so and, particularly, whether the suppliers are minded to work for greater co-operation and integration.

Premier Rail Services OUR SERVICES

RAIL EQUIPMENT HIRE

Level Crossing Upgrades and Maintenance – comprising Strail, Polysafe, Rosehill, Timber Installation of RRAPs

RRAP’s – comprising Strail, Rosehill, Foam, Heavy Duty Metal and UTAS (Universal Track Access System)

Fencing, Gates, Access Steps and Handrailing

Rail Dig Ramps

Site Clearance and Preparation / Tree Felling and Vegetation Clearing

Illuminated Safe Height Goalposts Temporary Pedestrian Access Steps

Ballast Retaining Walls / Debris Netting to Bridges

Track Way Mats Pedestrian/Vehicular/SAC’s

Carriageway Resurfacing / Verge Works

Temporary Site Fencing and Interlocking Road Barriers

For more information call us on 01302 738020 Email : info@premier-rail.co.uk

Website: www.premier-rail.co.uk

Premier Rail Services Ltd, Unit 23 and 25, J3 Business Park, Carr Hill, Doncaster, DN4 8DE

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

33

34

FEATURE

Technology alone is not enough DAVID SHIRRES

T

he Railway Industry Association (RIA) recently held its tenth innovation conference. As ever, this was an informative event with much useful guidance for those wishing to introduce rail innovations. This year’s theme - “technology alone is not enough” - reflected the view of those present that barriers to innovation need to be effectively addressed if rail is to compete with the increasing pace of change in other industries.

Darren Caplan opens the conference.

David Clarke leads a panel discussion with industry leaders Peter Pollock, LPA Group; Alex Burrows, RSG; Emma Head, HS2 and Prof Clive Roberts, UKRRIN.

Over the years Rail Engineer has reported on several promising innovations that are being progressed at a glacial pace, if at all. These include the novel REPOINT switch (September 2015), DMU flywheel energy storage (July 2014) and active pantographs (June 2015). An instant electronic poll showed only one percent considered lack of ideas to be a problem. The main issues were considered procurement not supporting innovation (56 per cent) and client risk aversion (43 per cent).

Setting the scene The conference was a mix of presentations, panel discussions, interactive workshop sessions and elevator

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

pitches. In addition, over twenty companies had their innovative products on display in the exhibition areas. This year, more than 250 delegates from over a hundred organisations attended over two days, and as in previous conferences,

several speakers from outside the rail industry gave particularly thought-provoking presentations.

RIA’s chief executive Darren Caplan set the scene when he opened the conference.

He advised that, as part of it lobbying on behalf of the industry, RIA had commissioned a report by Oxford Economics on rail’s contribution to the UK economy. This shows that the sector supports 600,000 jobs and that every pound spent on the network generates £2.20 in associated industries.

Darren felt that Government understood this and that there was a satisfactory level of current funding, although its boom and bust nature had to be addressed. He also noted that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), defined by the EU as those with under 250 staff and a turnover under €50

FEATURE million, which make up 60 per cent of RIA’s membership, were particularly vulnerable to swings in government policy.

One such swing was the recent electrification cutbacks, to which RIA’s response is its electrification cost challenge, the results of which are soon to be published.

David Clarke, RIA’s technical director, made the point that technology alone is not enough.

Any development has to start with a customer requirement and consider the people who will have to operate the technology.

He observed that innovation can also be about survival, as Kodak and Nokia found out to their cost. For this reason, the rail industry had to be aware of the potential impact of disruptive technologies.

Whilst rail has many strengths, David noted that it is an inflexible, high-cost industry that is slow to adopt new technology. Compared to other industries, it takes longer to develop a product from conception and, once developed, it might take years before the product is adopted.

As the conference poll had shown, one way of addressing this is intelligent procurement.

David suggested that more use could be made of the innovation partnership procedure in the 2014 EU public contracts directive, which uses a negotiated

Discussion at UKRRIN’s exhibition stand. and staged approach to invite suppliers to submit ideas to develop innovative products. Altran’s Ken Greenwood, in his presentation on the development and demonstration with Network Rail of the Compass Degraded Mode Signalling System, provided a worked example of this process.

In her presentation, Emma Head, HS2’s corporate health, safety, security and environment director, echoed the point about technology not being enough and stressed that people were at the heart of the innovation challenge.

Her presentation described how innovation is embedded in HS2’s procurement strategy.

HS2 also has an innovation hub and holds its own hackathons. She reported that a recent hack had 150 participants. Its winners had innovations for smart infrastructure that used augmented virtual reality and enabled HS2 to be a good neighbour.

Making it happen Professor Clive Roberts had a clear message - UKRRIN is open for business. Clive is the director of the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Railway Research and Education. The UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) was established last July, when the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) agreed to its bid for £28 million to match the committed £64 million investment from 16 private companies. It is to prioritise rail innovation across the UK by developing new centres of excellence in collaboration with government, universities and organisations promoting economic development.

UKRRIN consists of innovation centres for digital systems, rolling stock and infrastructure as well as Network Rail’s testing facilities. There is also a coordination hub led by RSSB and involving RIA. The digital system centre is at the University of Birmingham, where £16.4 million is being invested in a new 3,000 square metre building with state-of-the-art facilities for the development of solutions for operations and control, cybersecurity, data integration, smart monitoring and autonomous systems.

The University of Huddersfield is leading the rolling stock centre, supported by the Universities of Newcastle and Loughborough. Assisted by a £10 million investment, this will consider traction drivetrains, braking, structural integrity and crashworthiness, maintenance reliability and passenger interaction.

Freight bogie on University of Huddersfield’s bogie test rig.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

35

36

FEATURE

Network Rail’s website has information about its test centres.

The infrastructure centre is based at the national infrastructure laboratory currently under construction at the University of Southampton and will use other facilities at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University and the Universities of Loughborough, Nottingham and Sheffield. £1.7 million is being invested to enhance these facilities.

Clive had no doubt that UKRRIN’s world-class centres of excellence would help new

products and services get to market and could make the UK a global leader in rail innovation. He encouraged those with innovative ideas to engage with its centres.

The Rail Innovation and Testing Centres that form UKRRIN’s testing arm were described by Jon Shaw, Network Rail’s chief engineer.

In his presentation on asset management innovation, which described the industry’s research and development

programme, he described the challenge statements that Network Rail has produced to ensure potential innovators are aware of its priority areas.

These include guidance on the research and development required.

In his very open presentation, Jon acknowledged the difficulties faced by suppliers that wished to introduce new ideas, one of which was product acceptance.

In this respect, Jon advised that Network Rail was now processing seventy per cent of applications within forty days and that companies could now track their applications on its website. Jon also highlighted the soon-to-be-launched Network Rail standards challenge process, developed with help from RIA members.

Jon described how further guidance and support is provided by the Rail Technical Strategy (RTS) Capability Delivery Plan work package owners, many of whom gave elevator pitches at the conference and led table sessions to explain their work and seek ideas.

Rail Technical Strategy Capability Delivery Plan work package owners 1

Running trains closer together

Dr Karen Lane

BAE Systems

2

Minimal disruption to train services

Janine Fountain

Network Rail

3

Efficient passenger flows through stations and trains

Crispin Humm

Rail Delivery Group

4

More value from data

Karl Butler-Garnham

Network Rail

5

Optimum energy use

Ouahcene Ourahmoune

Alstom

6

More space on trains

James Brown

Angel Trains

7

Services timed to the second

Dr Karen Lane

BAE Systems

8

Intelligent trains

Ben Carrington

Altran

9

Personalised customer experience

Crispin Humm

Rail Delivery Group

10

Flexible freight

Richard Errington

Stobart Rail

11

Low-cost railway solutions

Neil Tinworth

Unipart Rail

12

Accelerated research development and technology deployment

James Hardy

RSSB

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

FEATURE Rail Professional Yearbook - Rail Display (1)

We want

You need

a converter to power our

a Relec EN50155 approved

DC DC Converter

wiper systems

+ Next day prototypes Independent test reports Network Rail PADS approval EN45545 fire & smoke compliance -40 degree operation Rectangular current limit Universal input range Logistic support

... and that’s just the beginning!

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

The specialist in power conversion and displays

RAIL DEPOT & WORKSHOP EQUIPMENT • • • • •

RAILCAR LIFTING JACKS BOGIE/EQUIPMENT DROPS TRAVERSERS TURNTABLES BOGIE WORKSHOP MACHINES • UNDER CAR EQUIPMENT HANDLING

• • • • •

LASER MEASURING SANDBOX FILLING SHUNTERS EXHAUST EXTRACTION UNDER FLOOR WHEEL LATHES

mechan.co.uk info@mechan.co.uk +44 (0)114 257 0563

Davy Industrial Park Prince of Wales Road Sheffield S9 4EX Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

37

38

FEATURE

Outside the industry

Automated vehicle inspection at ScotRail’s Millerhill depot.

The energy regulator Ofgem (the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) rewards innovation in the energy sector by setting the revenues earned by the networks as a function of their outputs, performance against expectations and innovations. In addition, Ofgem has a £500 million Low Carbon Network fund to support distribution projects and awards up to £70 million per year from its Network Innovation Competition.

Peter Jones, ABB’s technology strategy manager explained why this means that, in effect, companies being rewarded for not spending money. He had no doubt that the regulatory system successfully encourages innovation in the electrical supply industry and noted that ABB globally believes that “the UK system is fantastic”.

He advised that the electricity distribution system is not designed for its current role, as large power stations are no longer being built, and instead has a number of small-scale inputs, many of which are from highly variable renewable energy supplies. Hence, the national electricity grid must be measured, monitored and controlled on a minute-byminute basis.

Peter advised that, as a result, there is a need for smarter network development, energy storage, network management and control of the demandside response. He described innovation projects such as digital substations, solid-state circuit breakers, power flow control and system inertia as examples of Ofgem-funded

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

innovation projects to meet these requirements.

A ‘Winds of Change’ presentation concerning offshore wind power developments was given by Finbarr Dowling, Siemens customer service director for rolling stock. He explained the huge investments that Siemens had made to support its installation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.

This included a £160 million investment in Hull on a wind turbine facility, a new dock and part-funding a new university technical college, which together will create 1,100 jobs.

Large sums have also been invested on specialist ships that enable 7MW 154-metrediameter off-shore turbines to be erected within 24 hours.

Another development was the opening in 2014 of a remote diagnostic centre in Brande, Denmark, to monitor 7,500 Siemens turbines worldwide.

This centre monitors 24 million turbine parameters to collect 200 Gigabytes of data each

day and can fix 85 per cent of alarms remotely, significantly reducing the number of visits needed to offshore turbines and consequently the number of helicopters and ships required.

With these developments, Siemens has reduced its wind turbine generation cost from £200 MW/hr to £52 MW/hr over the past six years, making wind the cheapest form of utility-scale power generation.

Data and digital delivery This reduction in the cost of offshore turbine generation highlights the benefits of acquiring useful information through smart data management or, as Finbarr put it, to move from big data to smart data.

With their many sensors and automated vehicle inspection, large amounts of data are now being collected from modern rail vehicles.

In what he described as the industrialisation of data, the output from advanced data analytics using machine learning is analysed by experts who advise field-service experts of the action they need to take.

This needs data scientists and technology experts in the data analytics teams, as well as experienced depot technicians using digital tools.

The result is the replacement of classical preventative maintenance and reactive

FEATURE

INNOVATIVE PRECAST CONCRETE SOLUTIONS

SBC RAIL is the leading supplier of sleepers to UK high speed and urban transport networks

Key products include: • Twin block and monoblock sleepers for ballasted track • Slab track sleepers for embedded and non embedded rail • Booted sleepers and bearers for vibration mitigation • High Attenuation Sleepers (HAS), Smart Sleeper, Ladder track • MOFIX catenary foundations, embankment access stairs

www.sbcrail.co.uk Call: 0115 6977593 d.cross@stanton-bonna.co.uk

voith.com

Voith DIWARail Transmission: From Innovation to Proven Achieving lower emissions is a commit­ ment for all train operators.

Offering a fuel saving of up to 16 % and 30 tonnes of CO emissions per year, per transmission, the Voith DIWARail will help you the operator tackle this challenge and save money.

Benefits: Fully proven performance and reliability • Short delivery times • Minimal intrusion as a retro­fit solution • Complete operator confidence as a ‘ready to go’ product •

For more information: Email: VTGBRailSales@voith.com Tel. +44 (0208) 667 0333

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

39

40

FEATURE

Open day at Siemens' Ardwick depot to attract the next generation of railway engineers.

David Waboso explained the digital railway programme.

repairs by data-driven predictive maintenance, offering guaranteed availability and 100 per cent reliability at lower cost.

However, Finbarr was clear that this could only happen through investment in people, by training and developing the existing workforce and attracting talent to the industry.

To do this, Siemens has regular open days at its depots to make them open to everyone.

David Waboso, managing director of Network Rail’s digital railway programme, was also clear that people had to be at the heart of this programme if the workforce is to adopt new technologies and ways of working, especially as the digital railway does not respect the boundaries between track and train.

As Rail Engineer readers will know, the digital railway programme comprises of train separation (ETCS), train movement control (CDAS and ATO) and traffic management, all underpinned by a telecommunications network and smart infrastructure to improve performance.

This is needed to squeeze more from the existing infrastructure, which in many places is operating at capacity.

David illustrated this problem with a graph that showed how, over the past nine years,

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

the number of incidents has decreased from 27,000 to 19,000 whilst the delay per incident had increased from 27 to 37 minutes per incident, with secondary delays currently accounting for 70 per cent of the total.

The volume of signalling renewals required is currently around 1,500 signalling equivalent units (SEU) per year and will stay at this level until 2024, after which it will ramp up to 5,000 by 2028. As David explained, the cost of replacing this amount of signalling is unsustainable. Furthermore, there are not the signalling resources and engineering access to do it.

David’s presentation showed the programme’s 2018 milestones, which include

Western traffic management going live in June and the Thameslink core carrying 20 trains per hour in October.

Looking further into the future, he outlined the provisional integrated schedule up to 2029, when conventional signalling has to be replaced by digital.

He acknowledged that introducing such disruptive technology would be challenging and felt that delivering the digital railway needs innovative procurement and delivery. This will require early contractor involvement and outcome-based whole-oflife contracts that are aligned to the route and promoted crossindustry collaboration. Larger system contracts will also be required to facilitate risk taking and efficiency.

David’s message to take home was that successful digital delivery requires innovation in such soft issues as well as innovations in digital technology.

Getting interactive It would be wrong to give the impression that attendance at RIA’s conference required delegates to just spend their time listening to presentations, fascinating though these were.

There were also two 45-minute round-table discussions with RTS work package owners, as well as the opportunity to see what the conference exhibitors had on show.

FEATURE

Innovation not wanted - a case study

Neil Tinworth of Unipart led a round table discussion.

There were also two one-hour interactive workshops with seven topics on offer: digitalready signalling, identifying non-technical innovation enablers, digital engineer of the future, Shift2Rail supplier opportunities, unlocking innovation through procurement, the future of traction power and rail innovation - industry and academia.

This writer’s choice was digital-ready signalling and the future of traction power.

The former was led by the digital railway programme’s head of technical policy and strategy Pat McFadden, who freely admitted that “we are all on a journey together”. In this spirit, he described how Network Rail’s specification NR/L2/SIG/11711 ‘Digital Railway-Ready Signalling’ had been developed as part of the programme’s early contractor involvement.

This specification ensures that future signalling works can be upgraded with minimum disruption and cost when digital railway signalling is introduced.

It takes account of the likely timescale for digital railway implementation and addresses such issues as interlocking capacity, easy removal of signals (such as separating housings for signal modules and axle counters) and ease

of alteration of train detection systems (making axle counters the preferred method).

Thus it delivers passive provision for the digital railway and is the signalling equivalent of specifying ETCSready cab equipment fitted to new trains.

Future power for trains was considered in a workshop led

by David Clarke on Transport Minister Jo Johnson’s call to scrap diesel trains by 2040 to decarbonise the railway.

This workshop looked at the technical, operational and environmental issues associated with fuel-saving and at traction improvements which included cost-effective electrification, hydrogen, batteries, lightweighting and improved diesels.

It gave those present a flavour of the work that RIA is doing on its electrification cost challenge, which will show how electrification costs can be reduced. It also showed there is scope to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of diesel engines by the use of alternative fuels, recovering braking energy, having donkey engines on freight locomotives and developing more efficient transmissions. However, this last suggestion provided a case study of a worthwhile innovation not being adopted.

In the 1980s, over 2,500 Voith T211 hydrodynamic gearboxes were fitted to second-generation British DMUs such as the 15X units. These were much more reliable than gearboxes on first-generation units but at low speeds their fluid flywheels are not efficient. With fuel economy and CO2 emissions now much more important, Voith was keen to show how its latest transmissions could save fuel and so, as a trial, had its DIWARail hydro-mechanical gearboxes fitted to a two-car class 158 unit operated by Arriva Trains Wales, as reported by Rail Engineer in August 2016 (issue 142).

The trial showed the DIWARail gearboxes gave fuel savings of between 10 and 16 per cent and reduced CO2 emissions by up to 30 tonnes per car per year, as well as reducing gearbox maintenance costs by up to forty per cent. As a result, Voith estimates the DIWARail gearboxes would pay for themselves in about four years.

However, three years later, after almost completing the 500,000-mile overhaul cycle without a failure, there, as yet appears to be no demand for any further units to be fitted with DIWARail gearboxes. The original trial was to be for 50,000 miles.

Voith’s Dave Taylor has been involved with this trial from the start. He advised that this was done with strong collaboration from all stakeholders and involved six of his company’s divisions. He considers the DIWARail transmission to be an innovative product, and one which is fully proven. Dave is clearly frustrated that the significant amount of work put into this trial has so far come to naught, despite the obvious benefits. He feels that the industry is not culturally and commercially aligned to embrace and deliver innovation but stresses that this is not due to any one company.

The lack of demand for DIWARail transmissions after this successful trial would be a worthwhile case study for anyone wishing to understand the barriers to rail innovation and the disincentives that this presents to the supply chain.

DIWARail gearbox fitted to class 158 unit.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

41

42

FEATURE

Incentivising innovation

ABB's robot was printing hand-signed business cards.

Is enough being done to stimulate rail innovation? The answer would seem to be no, as Dave Taylor’s view was certainly shared by many at the conference. RIA certainly can’t be faulted in this respect.

By running its conference and associated Unlocking Innovation Workshops, RIA is doing much to support rail innovation.

Moreover, the smooth running of such a complex conference was no mean feat.

Much good work is also being done within Network Rail, RSSB, UKRRIN and other organisations to support innovation, and it would be wrong to give the impression that the industry can’t innovate.

In his presentation, Jon Shaw gave examples of successful innovations including surveying by drones, taking isolations by secure text message instead of padlocks and DIFCAM, which assesses asset condition by comparing digital images taken at different times to detect changes invisible to the eye.

This was presented to the RIA innovation conference in 2013.

Panel discussions revealed further examples. A train Ethernet-backbone that was developed within four months to provide hi-definition CCTV images after a guard was attacked was one, another was

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

a low-cost customer information system at unstaffed stations on the Cumbrian coast.

As the conference poll showed, there is no shortage of ideas for rail innovation.

On some occasions, this can be done well, especially on a small scale with few organisational interfaces.

However, the implementation of other innovations often stalls, especially those which, to quote David Waboso, do not respect the boundaries between track and train.

Some suggest that the industry structure is the problem, with fragmentation being an issue. Also, as mentioned in a conference panel discussion with train operating company

representatives, franchises will not get a return on innovation investment unless it is introduced early in the franchise.

The challenge is to effectively incentivise innovation within the current structure to encourage collaboration between different companies and give franchises a return on innovations implemented at any time in the franchise.

In this respect there must be lessons to be learnt from the electricity supply industry where Ofgem’s regime provides the incentive to innovate. Perhaps the ORR could present their thoughts on this subject to RIA’s 2019 innovation conference.

AM1 Projects Ltd supporting the future growth of rail electrification

Full in-house Design Capability HV Survey HV Assessment HV Monitoring E & P Infrastructure AC & DC Electrification ETE Works ETM Works Earthing

www.am1projects.co.uk

L IMITE D

44

FEATURE All the signalling equipment between Sutton and Mitcham Junction was to be completely renewed, with signalling control being moved from a conventional NX panel at Victoria Area Signalling Centre to a Siemens Controlguide Westcad control desk at Three Bridges Rail Operating Centre (ROC).

The project also included the complete renewal of the CCTV level crossing at Mitcham Eastfields with axle counters replacing all conventional track circuits for train detection.

Enhanced negative bonding

Electrical excellence

The importance of attention to detail

A

mongst all of the other resignalling schemes that are underway at present - Cardiff, Bristol, North Wales, Derby, Norwich Yarmouth Lowestoft,

Waterloo, Birmingham and Cornwall amongst others - there is one that is often overlooked.

Siemens Rail Automation was awarded a contract by Network Rail for the Victoria 2: Sutton to Wimbledon resignalling project in August 2016.

The project called for the decommissioning of life-expired relay interlocking systems at Sutton, Mitcham Junction and Wimbledon, and for them to be replaced by two new Siemens Trackguard Westlock computer-based interlockings, at Sutton and Wimbledon.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

As part of this project, Siemens asked AM1 Projects to carry out the design, installation and commissioning of the enhanced negative bonding that would be required. AM1 Projects, based in Chatham, Kent, had previously undertaken similar projects in Control Period 5 for Network Rail on the East Sussex, Poole to Wool and Victoria Area Phase 2a Re-signalling Schemes (Streatham).

Conversion of signalling track circuits to axle counters requires the existing traction negative bonding to be changed to enhanced negative bonding in accordance with CRE (conductor rail equipment) work instructions. Using the signalling scheme plans, AM1 Projects designed the enhanced negative bonding for the different areas of the scheme in house.

As much of the bonding as possible was installed in advance in preparation for the conversion to axle counters over the 2018 Easter weekend commissioning. This included renewal of DC negative feeders at substations and TP (track paralleling) huts.

During the commissioning weekend, AM1 Projects permanently connected the new enhanced bonding and recovered redundant impedance bonds and cables.

E&P Work Some of the traction locations on the scheme were classified as ‘hot sites’. This was nothing new, as AM1 Projects had previously provided design and construct solutions for ‘hot sites’ throughout the South East of England for Network Rail Route Maintenance and Investment Projects, having worked at over 20 substations over the past three years.

Sutton substation, a critical location for the scheme, was a classified ‘hot site’ and AM1 Projects was contracted to design and build a solution to declassify the site, enabling the access restrictions at the location to be lifted.

The chosen solution used earth interlinks between the 11kV and 33kV substation buildings. Existing earth legs were refurbished and several new earth legs installed in a nononsense solution that resolved immediate traction location earthing issues. This enabled Sutton substation to be declared a cold site

FEATURE and access restrictions were lifted, allowing work to be carried out within the substation and surrounding area.

AM1 Projects was also contracted to design and renew the point heating trackside components at various points on the scheme and to carry out the conductor rail alterations that would allow the new signalling equipment to be located.

Winchfield substation A little further out from London, at Winchfield station in Hampshire on the line between Waterloo and Basingstoke, a DC contactor failed, causing damage to the adjacent DC switchboard. As a result, train services were disrupted, so Network Rail instructed AM1 Projects to design, install and commission two new DC Modules into service at Winchfield substation on a tight timetable.

With the challenging timescales, the new DC modules had to be located near the existing substation. With extremely limited space available, AM1 Projects designed the layout and configuration of the DC modules, concrete module bases and DC and LV cable routes to suit these location restraints and enable construction to start.

DC cables and switchgear AM1 Projects was instructed to double-up the DC track feeder cables for the four-track layout and designed the routeing through tracks using cable management sleepers.

The four DC interconnector cables from the original Bournemouth Electrification 2MW H&H traction rectifier set had been damaged beyond repair when the DC contactor failed.

To enable connection of six new 1,000sq mm aluminium cables to the existing rectifier output busbar, AM1 Projects proposed the use of 500sq mm copper LUL cable and lugs, working with suppliers to produce bespoke size-reducer connectors and busbar lugs to enable this interface, which Network Rail approved.

Network Rail provided two DC Modules and AM1 Projects re-configured the DC busbar to enable connection of the supply from the existing rectifier to the eight electrical sections.

A new DC interface marshalling cabinet was installed, to enable connection from the new DC modules to the existing GEC supervisory control equipment and HV switchgear, and the existing LV supplies were also modified to enable LV supply to the new DC modules.

Construction and commissioning The site was cleared and concrete bases and cable routes constructed in time for delivery of the two DC Modules in an abnormal possession.

AM1 Projects delivered the modules to Winchfield and used a Kirow crane to manoeuvre the 11-tonne modules into position.

With four weeks to go, connection of the DC modules commenced in preparation for the commissioning of the DC switchgear and cables during a 52-hour possession.

AM1 Projects had precommissioned the DC modules at a Network Rail storage depot prior to delivery to Winchfield.

High-current testing was carried out on the DC circuit breakers on site before commissioning, to ensure there would be no control or equipment problems later.

The supervisory control and protection wiring was installed and pre-commissioned with Eastleigh ECR (electrical control room) before the planned possession.

The DC track feeder cables were successfully installed and commissioned into service during the 52-hour possession, which enabled train service restrictions to be lifted after delays over just 12 weeks.

Finally, the DC interconnector cables were connected to the rectifier and DC modules after the possession and were commissioned into service once the damaged rectifier protection equipment was repaired.

Both of these projects, at Sutton and at Winchfield, benefited from the collective experiences of AM1 Projects, gained within the rail industry over many years.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

45

46

PERMANENT WAY

Exploring Network Rail’s data mine

GRAHAME TAYLOR

N

etwork Rail is the proud owner of a multitude of infrastructure databases - and, no doubt, many more in other disciplines too. They range from the whimsically named TiCled to the positively antediluvian GEOGIS. The former is the Tight Clearance database, the latter the complete record of track and its components which started life in the days of huge dot matrix printers and mountains of folding paper. To be fair, GEOGIS has now been consigned to history, replaced with the INM (Integrated Network Model).

Then there’s CARRS (Civils Asset Register And Reporting System) and TRUST (Train Running Under System TOPS -that’s the Total Operations Processing System) and RDMS (Rail Defect Management System) amongst a host of others.

They’re all really worthy in their own rights and have proved invaluable to those whose specialty relates directly to the database in question. In the joined up railway - the digital railway - there’s a problem for frontline engineers. To put it mildly, it’s not practical for those dealing with day-to-day decisions to start aligning all the databases to see where the critical influences occur. Because of history, because of technology, because of the original intent and use of the information, few of the databases are readily compatible.

The Track DST This is where the team building the Track Decision Support Tool - the Track DST comes in. It is working within the ORBIS programme, which has the objective to “serve Network Rail and the GB rail industry as the trusted source of assetrelated information and insight, from which informed decisions can be made to balance risk, performance and funding to best deliver Network Rail’s Promise”.

ORBIS - Offering Rail Better Information Systems. For a more comprehensive account of ORBIS, have a look at the May 2015 edition of the Rail Engineer or browse through our ‘In print’ archive on www.railengineer.uk, it’s in issue 127.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

As Jonathan Schofield, communications manager for the ORBIS programme, explains, the overarching vision for the Track DST project is to develop decisionmaking capabilities that enable Network Rail to make evidence-based decisions for renewals and refurbishment, for predictive and preventative maintenance, and to improve effectiveness.

All of this means painstakingly boilingdown all the data sources and making them readable and intelligible. Victor Adeoye has that task and, thanks to his efforts and those of his colleagues, a comprehensive database containing a wealth of information is being built and refined.

Drilling down At the moment, what is being constructed is a proof of concept. It is assembled on a weekly basis and so is not real time - although, ultimately, this could be the aim. The Track DST splits

Cyclic top isn't always visible.

the railway into 220-yard lengths. To some this may look like one-eighth of a mile - which indeed it is. To others - those long in the tooth - it looks like 10 chains, suggesting that some of the databases are pretty old, predating full metrication by several decades. In fact, within these 220-yard lengths, it is possible to access much finer detail.

Drilling down, data mining, or whatever is the current term, is an accepted technique in the construction of any modern decision tool. But it is this feature that has taken a great deal of effort by the team bearing in mind where all the information has come from. Drilling down is now possible, and possible to an impressive extent.

The focus of the task is not only to see the history of a stretch of track in terms of work done and money spent, but also to use all that history to build a predictive tool so that future problems can be treated before they cause problems with speed restrictions or line availability.

The Track DST was originally built as a tool to assist in the management of switch and crossing assemblies, but it has now been expanded to include all issues relating to plain line. In the future, it may be further expanded to include features in what is traditionally known as

PERMANENT WAY ‘the permanent way’ - fencing, drainage, earthworks, structures and even signalling and electrification.

Presenting the most recent version of the tool, Martin Mason, information development manager, was able to show how it is possible to make reliable predictions of the development of serious track faults based on objective observations by the track recording coach. Future spends can be predicted, and thus decisions on whether to renew or maintain a stretch of track can be made.

Using the tool appears disarmingly simple which, in itself, is an indicator of the effort taken to integrate all the information sources.

The issue of Cyclic Top In a recent development, some fascinating analysis has been carried out on the perplexing problem of cyclic top.

Perhaps it’s worth explaining cyclic top and why it is so important in the modern railway.

First of all, it’s important because it causes derailments - and major derailments at that. What is it? Basically, it’s a series of faults in ‘top’ - the quality of the longitudinal profile of the rail. Cyclic top faults are those that occur at regular and evenly spaced intervals. Of particular concern are those faults that typically occur every 4.5, 6, 9, 13.5 and 18 metres, but the precise interval can vary according to the prevailing rolling stock and speed.

Why are these faults a problem? Here it is worth looking at a bit of history. Fifty years or so ago, most freight wagons

had short wheelbases - typically about ten feet. They were particularly prone to derail at track twist faults, where one rail changes its relative elevation to the other rail at a gradient of 1 in 240 or worse. The wagons could not tolerate this severity

discovered, but this was little comfort to those at ground level who had no means of measuring the sites and no access to the early computer programmes that simulated the behaviour of particular types of wagon.

of twist and would easily flange climb and fall off. Speed was - by and large not relevant. Twist faults can be seen on inspection and, most importantly, they can be measured with a simple crosslevel gauge. In this way, ground level staff were able to identify and control problem sites.

The derailments of short wheelbase wagons died out when the use of these wagons ceased. But other strange types of derailment started to occur. These involved longer wheelbase wagons at sites that appeared to have track with no twist fault exceedances.

When the derailment sites were surveyed, it was found that top faults occurred at regular intervals and it was soon established that the problem involved not only the track, but also the suspension characteristics of the vehicles along with speed. Cyclic top had been

Although today there are test trains that can identify cyclic top and give a measure of risk associated with each one, it is still a difficult issue to manage between train runs.

A breakthrough The recent development in the Track DST can be termed a breakthrough in infrastructure management. Team member and network data manager Andrew Nwichi-Holdsworth, who started on the railway as a trackman in the Shipley Kango gang in 1979, has been analysing a number of sites. He has applied a selection of filters to get rid of the ‘noise’ and to reveal cycles at different wavelengths of top fault.

This analysis shows that, far from occurring at only a few locations, critical wavelengths are almost everywhere. It is

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

47

PERMANENT WAY 14

TBH1 ‐ 1100 : 35.0000 to 36.0000 ‐ 13.5m Top Left Run Date: 06/02/2018

Direction

12 10 8 6 4 2

36.0000 35.1744 35.1727 35.1709 35.1692 35.1674 35.1657 35.1639 35.1622 35.1604 35.1587 35.1569 35.1552 35.1534 35.1517 35.1499 35.1482 35.1464 35.1447 35.1429 35.1412 35.1394 35.1377 35.1359 35.1342 35.1324 35.1307 35.1289 35.1273 35.1255 35.1238 35.1220 35.1203 35.1185 35.1168 35.1150 35.1133 35.1115 35.1098 35.1080 35.1063 35.1045 35.1028 35.1011 35.0993 35.0976 35.0958 35.0941 35.0923 35.0906 35.0888 35.0871 35.0853 35.0835 35.0818 35.0800 35.0783 35.0766 35.0748 35.0731 35.0713 35.0696 35.0678 35.0661 35.0643 35.0626 35.0608 35.0591 35.0573 35.0556 35.0538 35.0521 35.0503 35.0486 35.0468 35.0451 35.0433 35.0416 35.0398 35.0381 35.0363 35.0346 35.0328 35.0311 35.0293 35.0276 35.0258 35.0241 35.0223 35.0206 35.0188 35.0171 35.0153 35.0136 35.0118 35.0101 35.0083 35.0066 35.0048 35.0031 35.0013

0

Potential Trigger

5

4 Underbridges 3 S&C ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2 Wet Beds ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Level Crosings 36.0000 35.1744 35.1727 35.1709 35.1692 35.1674 35.1657 35.1639 35.1622 35.1604 35.1587 35.1569 35.1552 35.1534 35.1517 35.1499 35.1482 35.1464 35.1447 35.1429 35.1412 35.1394 35.1377 35.1359 35.1342 35.1324 35.1307 35.1289 35.1273 35.1255 35.1238 35.1220 35.1203 35.1185 35.1168 35.1150 35.1133 35.1115 35.1098 35.1080 35.1063 35.1045 35.1028 35.1011 35.0993 35.0976 35.0958 35.0941 35.0923 35.0906 35.0888 35.0871 35.0853 35.0835 35.0818 35.0800 35.0783 35.0766 35.0748 35.0731 35.0713 35.0696 35.0678 35.0661 35.0643 35.0626 35.0608 35.0591 35.0573 35.0556 35.0538 35.0521 35.0503 35.0486 35.0468 35.0451 35.0433 35.0416 35.0398 35.0381 35.0363 35.0346 35.0328 35.0311 35.0293 35.0276 35.0258 35.0241 35.0223 35.0206 35.0188 35.0171 35.0153 35.0136 35.0118 35.0101 35.0083 35.0066 35.0048 35.0031 35.0013

0

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

18TL

18TR

135TL

135TR

9TL

9TR

6TL

6TR

36.0000 35.1744 35.1727 35.1709 35.1692 35.1674 35.1657 35.1639 35.1622 35.1604 35.1587 35.1569 35.1552 35.1534 35.1517 35.1499 35.1482 35.1464 35.1447 35.1429 35.1412 35.1394 35.1377 35.1359 35.1342 35.1324 35.1307 35.1289 35.1273 35.1255 35.1238 35.1220 35.1203 35.1185 35.1168 35.1150 35.1133 35.1115 35.1098 35.1080 35.1063 35.1045 35.1028 35.1011 35.0993 35.0976 35.0958 35.0941 35.0923 35.0906 35.0888 35.0871 35.0853 35.0835 35.0818 35.0800 35.0783 35.0766 35.0748 35.0731 35.0713 35.0696 35.0678 35.0661 35.0643 35.0626 35.0608 35.0591 35.0573 35.0556 35.0538 35.0521 35.0503 35.0486 35.0468 35.0451 35.0433 35.0416 35.0398 35.0381 35.0363 35.0346 35.0328 35.0311 35.0293 35.0276 35.0258 35.0241 35.0223 35.0206 35.0188 35.0171 35.0153 35.0136 35.0118 35.0101 35.0083 35.0066 35.0048 35.0031 35.0013

as if the whole of the railway has been affected by the resonance of vehicle suspension. The top faults are largely benign, but they can grow to serious proportions when vehicles encounter a trigger point.

This can be something like a wet bay, a dipped joint, a bridge-end or a level crossing.

Derailments happen when wagons start to bounce and roll and yaw - all triggered by these regular top faults which Andrew’s analysis clearly shows

are developing to critical levels.

He can also show how these faults grow from one recording to the next and so this is the start of a predictive tool that can prompt the remedial action needed to prevent a disruptive fault. There are, of course, further issues in that the longitudinal stiffness of track has to be understood so that preventative action has a beneficial effect rather than making things worse in the long term.

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

Visit us online today at eziklampsystems.com Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

The team is busy, not only refining the Track DST, but also presenting its findings to those charged with the responsibility of maintaining assets on the ground.

These audiences now include railways from outside of the UK. Problems with asset management exist all over the world and cyclic top, for one, is no exception. Heavy-haul freight railways are realising that they need to get a grip on this problem, especially when there are limited time windows available to intervene.

The ride characteristics of

wagons on other railways will differ from those in the UK, but this can be overcome by applying different filters to the data so as to isolate different wavelengths. The tool can be applied worldwide if needed, a sign of the UK railway industry asserting itself again as a world leader.

At the start of the digital railway programme, the founding minds were at pains to stress that the real benefits from coordinating all the asset data would really kick in some five or so years down the line.

It is now five years on... and the predictions are coming true.

PHOTO: YouTube\MrThrash37

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

• Handrails • Pedestrian & safety barriers • Roof Edge Protection

Exports

These stills taken from a video of a train passing Moreton on Lugg clearly show the pitching of the wagons as they encounter cyclic top.

48

Switch Life

Bearer Life

Rail Life

BFI

ELR

TID

Speed

Mileage

CMP1

2100

Texto431: CGJ6 1200 Texto431: CBC2 1100 Texto431: CBC1 2100 Texto431: CMD1 2100 Texto431: LEC1 1100 Texto431: SNJ 3100 Texto431: CGJ6 1100 Texto431: CBC1 1100 Texto431: LEC1 1100 Texto431: SAG 2100 Texto431: CMD2 2100 Texto431: MCJ2 3100 Texto431: MCH 1100 Texto431: DSE 2100 Texto431: MCJ3 3100 Texto431: PBJ 3300 Texto431: WJL4 2100 Texto431: NSN 3100 Texto431: RBS2 2100 Texto431: RBS2 1100 Texto431: RBS1 2100 Texto431: CRC2 2100 Texto431: WJL4 1100 Texto431: PRA 3100 Texto431: LSC2 2100 Texto431: RBS1 1100 Texto431: FHR4 3100 Texto431: LEC1 2100 Texto431: NAJ1 2100 Texto431: CGJ5 1300 Texto431: PBN 3200 Texto431: CNB1 3400 Texto431: DSE 1100 Texto431: RYH2 1100 Texto431: FHR5 3101 Texto431: MAJ 1100 Texto431: LEC1 2100 Texto431: CDM2 2100 Texto431: CMD2 2100 Texto431: MCJ3 3100 Texto431: CWK2 1100 Texto431: BAG2 2100 Texto431: LEC1 1100 Texto431: MAS 1100 Texto431: CNB4 3400 Texto431: DBP3 2100 Texto431: DSE 2100 Texto431: CMD1 1100 Texto431: MCJ3 3100 Texto431: CGJ6 1200 Texto431: LEC2 2100 Texto431: MCJ3 3100 Texto431: MAS 1100 Texto431: NMC1 2100 Texto431: CNB1 1100 Texto431: TSB 1100 Texto431: LEC1 2100 Texto431: MAS 1100 Texto431: WJP1 1100 Texto431: NAJ2 1100 Texto431: NMC1 3400 Texto431: BAG1 2100 Texto431: SAG 2100 Texto431: LEC2 2200 Texto431: BAG1 2100 Texto431: CWK1 1100 Texto431: HCN 1100 Texto431: CNH1 1100 Texto431: NAJ2 1100 Texto431: NWO 1100 Texto431: HCN 1100 Texto431:

ELR

TID

S&C Search

TCAT

5

3

3

1A

2

5

1

3

1

5

5

1A

5

2

3

3

4

1A

2

3

2

5

4

5

2

4

4

4

3

2

2

6

158.0440 158.0660

003.0880 003.1100

046.0926 046.1100

046.1100 046.1320

157.0880 157.1100

164.0704 164.0880

039.0000 039.0220

007.0660 007.0880

003.0660 003.0880

160.0660 160.0880

000.0660 000.0796

101.0660 101.0880

157.1540 158.0000

169.0880 169.1100

177.0660 177.0767

164.0880 164.1100

000.0220 000.0440

009.0220 009.0440

168.0660 168.0880

030.1540 031.0000

008.0000 008.0220

180.0000 180.0220

042.0880 042.1100

000.0880 000.1100

107.1100 107.1320

042.0890 042.1100

001.1591 001.1700

000.1320 000.1534

172.0660 172.0880

007.1540 008.0000

008.0660 008.0880

000.1320 000.1534

1

103.0660 103.0880

1

4

008.0660 008.0880

031.1540 032.0000

4

046.1540 047.0000

3

3

192.0000 192.0220

009.0880 009.1100

4

005.1100 005.1320

1A

1

098.0880 098.1100

063.0880 063.1100

3

012.1540 013.0000

3

3

013.0000 013.0220

013.0660 013.0880

6

008.0880 008.1100

4

3

193.0000 193.0220

010.1100 010.1320

5

007.1320 007.1540

4

5

159.0440 159.0660

2

3

011.1540 012.0000

008.0880 008.1100

2

000.0880 000.1100

002.0220 002.0440

5

041.1540 042.0000

4

1

032.0000 032.0220

168.0660 168.0855

5

000.0880 000.1100

5

1A

056.0440 056.0660

008.0440 008.0620

5

053.0660 053.0880

5

1

009.0660 009.0880

021.0660 021.0880

6

003.0220 003.0440

2

1A

005.1100 005.1320

005.0000 005.0220

1

003.0880 003.1100

5

5

053.0660 053.0880

1A

5

006.0880 006.1100

068.0000 068.0220

5

000.0660 000.0796

010.0880 010.1100

1

174.1540 175.0000

220 Yards 220 Yards TC Start End

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

3 Timber

3 Timber

4 Concrete

4 Concrete

3 Steel

5 Concrete

3 Timber

1 Concrete

2 Concrete

3 Timber

3 Concrete

4 Concrete

5 Concrete

3 Concrete

1 Timber

4 Concrete

3 Concrete

3 Concrete

3 Concrete

4 Timber

1 Concrete

1 Timber

4 Timber

1 Concrete

5 Concrete

2 Concrete

3 Steel

3 Concrete

1 Concrete

3 Timber

5 Concrete

4 Timber

1 Concrete

5 Steel

1 Concrete

3 Concrete

4 Timber

5 Timber

5 Concrete

3 Timber

3 Concrete

2 Timber

4 Timber

1 Concrete

4 Timber

1 Concrete

3 Timber

4 Concrete

2 Timber

5 Concrete

1 Concrete

2 Timber

2 Timber

3 Timber

2 Timber

3 Timber

4 Timber

5 Concrete

1 Concrete

4 Timber

1 Concrete

3 Timber

1 Concrete

5 Timber

1 Concrete

3 Timber

1 Concrete

1 Concrete

5 Timber

5 Concrete

1 Timber

4 Concrete

1957 1957

1957 1957

1977 1977

2005 1964

1969 1969

1954 1954

1983 1983

1960 1960

1927 1927

2002 2002

2000 2000

1971 1971

1981 1981

1960 1960

1980 1980

2008 2008

35

75

60

50

Y

Y

Y

Y

2002 2002

1976 1976

1981 1981

1960 1960

1982 1982

2007 2007

2008 2008

2009 2009

1970 1970

1927 1927

1977 1977

1979 1979

1985 1985

2006 2006

1960 1960

1972 1972

2014 2014

25

30

Y

Y

1977 1977

2003 2003

2006 2006

1979 1979

1964 1964

2000 2000

1979 1979

1988 1988

15

70

1975 1975

2008 2008

100 1972 1972

90

20

Y

75

25

Y

30

100 1972 1972

75

90

125 1991 1991

60

45

80

90

30

125 2002 2002

25

30

125 2000 2000

90

95

30

90

125 2001 2001

45

60

30

125 2003 2003

60

20

Y

1977 1977

1972 1972

1967 1967

1975 1975

1981 1981

1971 1971

125 2011 2011

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

45

Y

85

35

Y

1970 1970

100 1965 1965

Y

125 2003 2003

50

110 1984 1984

40

40

30

Y

1962 1962

100 2004 2004

15

15

10

30

30

30

90

95

30

125 2003 2003

25

125 1983 1983

60

125 2014 2014

20

110 2011 2011

15

Y

1964 1964

1955 1955

1970 1970

125 2003 2003

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

60

Y

60

35

Y

110 2002 2002

1975

2008

1972

1977

2002

1984

1979

1964

2000

1979

1988

1972

1972

1985

1991

1977

2011

1985

2006

1961

2002

1970

1927

2000

1982

2007

1992

2009

2001

1976

1981

1961

1972

2002

2001

1977

1972

1967

1975

1981

1971

1970

1977

2001

1961

1984

1957

1960

1980

1962

2004

1964

1969

1954

1983

1960

1927

1986

2000

1971

1972

1977

1980

1957

2014

1957

2011

2003

1964

1955

1970

2002

Sleeper YR

1975

2008

1972

1977

2002

1917

1979

1964

2000

1979

2002

1972

1972

1985

1991

1977

2011

1985

2006

1961

2015

1970

1927

2000

1982

2007

1992

2009

2001

1976

1981

1961

1972

2002

2004

2003

1972

1967

1975

1981

1971

1970

1977

2003

1961

2015

1957

1960

1980

1962

2010

2003

1969

1954

1983

1960

1927

1986

2000

1971

1972

1977

1980

1957

1997

1957

2011

2003

1964

1955

1970

2002

Ballast YR

Year of Installation

RC Sleeper S&C SPD Right Left Type Rail Rail

Primary Track Attributes

Bearer Type

25893

RCF Severity R8THS

TSM

TME

Route IMDM

The proof of concept tool.

58

36

20

41

86

0

6

2

21

6

75

20

53

36

1

-8

12

29

4

4

31

51

-30

33

40

32

97

43

14

25

33

4

40

7

23

71

15

12

14

3

15

-2

7

17

23

16

-13

-7

23

-12

3

6

-11

-3

0

8

-30

55

27

-13

40

-14

-6

1

44

1

20

29

8

-19

15

39

Rail Life

-2

18

2

10

48

0

-6

-23

45

-6

42

2

10

6

-1

19

43

3

11

-16

54

-8

-42

29

13

33

41

39

20

-5

11

-16

4

36

27

44

-1

-9

-7

6

-6

-7

6

23

-11

37

-23

-16

-2

-24

34

-8

-20

-23

2

-17

-42

8

8

-6

4

-1

-9

-20

29

-20

30

31

-13

-22

-7

33

37

37

99

14

69

14

51

27

-28

71

28

4

4

94

41

44

76

25

23

52

48

5

65

-17

97

86

-7

13

Sleeper Switch Life Life

Residual Life

15% 15

14% 14

76% 76

33% 33

15% 15

87% 87

66% 66

12% 12

62% 62

64% 64

8% 8

76% 76

54% 54

100% 100

10% 10

88% 88

75% 75

100% 100

100% 100

66% 66

37% 37

4% 4

100% 100

26% 26

8% 8

25% 25

6% 6

59% 59

2% 2

94% 94

71% 71

64% 64

24% 24

71% 71

32% 32

0% 0

73% 73

0% 0

75% 75

77% 77

60% 60

77% 77

4% 4

94% 94

100% 100

33% 33

62% 62

18% 18

52% 52

87% 87

100% 100

43% 43

13% 13

86% 86

10% 10

95% 95

80% 80

89% 89

93% 93

100% 100

24% 24

62% 62

60% 60

41% 41

100% 100

56% 56

20% 20

14% 14

35% 35

0% 0

17% 17

87% 87

BFI

£1,439

£15,159

£1,335

£585

£1,439

£0

£1,276

£8,482

£1,335

£2,419

£2,907

£8,869

£1,124

£533

£961

£3,103

£5,398

£3,197

£690

£530

£153

£3,987

£1,633

£2,464

£97

£193

£3,986

£5,418

£707

£4,566

£584

£2,651

£3,232

£2,922

£3,282

£24,389

£12,806

£8,925

£12,039

£206

£7,408

£7

£1,561

17

13

28

59

17

69

14

19

1

33

18

33

20

25

94

22

31

14

10

6

11

10

21

6

5

3

24

9

32

13

8

14

31

34

252

12

148

49

128

73

0

196

117

312

75

150

68

255

553

194

243

1065

788

85

37

1252

48

30

40

82

96

14

235

26

116

40

106

74

40

40

114

38

11

13

24

18

16

35

9

15

1

26

18

28

14

11

55

18

24

10

3

2

5

8

7

3

5

3

23

4

18

5

2

7

18

34

132

8

105

31

65

57

0

172

53

233

38

147

14

191

405

93

234

926

629

62

17

1144

21

30

38

69

55

12

193

13

39

18

59

46

28

16

81

29

3YRS 365d PL PL WAIFs WAIFs

565

0

0

0

544

0

1052

0

133

718

0

0

0

0

522

0

0

308

0

0

0

540

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

190

0

0

0

0

0

0

1173

1862

1190

658

250

1154

354

0

0

0

930

0

665

1010

0

0

1090

0

0

2445

0

0

344

0

0

0

1128

0

110

0

694

0

0

650

1345

0

3YRS S&C WAIFs

Cyclic

150

0

0

0

146

0

268

0

30

189

0

0

0

0

130

0

0

80

0

0

0

140

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

47

0

0

0

0

0

0

325

434

289

153

24

304

102

0

0

0

205

0

170

245

0

0

224

0

0

605

0

0

84

0

0

0

291

0

36

0

164

0

0

172

304

0

1

7

18

2

5

1

12

2

3

1

4

21

6

6

2

7

1

1

22

1

8

1

1

10

3

2

4

4

1

15

2

40

5

35

36

22

18

23

52

28

85

43

104

26

15

110

55

20

62

116

6

96

2

46

9

110

3

2

4

4

4

5

8

1

7

19

17

12

6

6

20

4

4

5

9

4

7

10

365d All 365d ALL 365d S&C PL PL S&C S&C WAIFs Defcts Defcts Faults Faults

£21,362

£15,509

£543

£15,509

£570,608

£56,514

£1,578

£110,256

£999

£21,324

£28,405

£58,750

£57,323

£89,971

£38,583

£83,034

£361,955

£225,463

£595,129

All FMS Cost

0.40 3.12 -1.07

Very 7.16 Poor Satisfactory 3.49 No 10.02 Data 0.27 Very 4.67 Poor Good 0.67Very 4.99 Poor Good 1.73 0.00

No Data Very 7.19 Poor Satisfactory 4.01 No8.81 Data -1.26

0.13

No Data Very 7.18 Poor Satisfactory 2.83No8.25 Data No5.51 Data 1.09

0.00

Very 5.34 Poor Satisfactory 2.37No 12.46 Data No4.87 Data 0.63

0.00 -0.11 3.12 -0.61 0.14

Satisfactory Very 3.35 Poor Satisfactory 1.26 Satisfactory 2.62 Good 1.53 -0.72 Satisfactory Very 6.3 Poor Good 0.96No7.33 Data No1.41 Data -0.29 Very 3.11 Poor Good 0.73 Satisfactory 3.34 Good 0.83 0.00

Satisfactory Very 7.27 Poor Satisfactory 4.09 No5.98 Data -0.45 Satisfactory Very 5.93 Poor Good 1.5 0.00 0.04

Very 4.56 Poor Satisfactory 1.27Very 4.49 Poor Satisfactory 1.99 -0.72

No Data Very 5.07 Poor Satisfactory 2.08Very 6.7 Poor Satisfactory 3.69 -0.18

0.00 0.06

Satisfactory Very 4.49 Poor Satisfactory 1.14Very 4.71 Poor Good 1.5 0.00 Satisfactory Very 7.51 Poor Satisfactory 3.93 No6.6 Data -0.26

-0.10

Very 5.12 Poor Good 1.36No6.18 Data No2.25 Data -0.26

No Data Very 7.18 Poor Very 7.74 Poor

-1.45

-3.98

0.00 -0.01

0.00

Very 3.78 Poor Satisfactory 1.11

Satisfactory Very 5.93 Poor Good 0.67No7.39 Data No1.17 Data -0.55

Poor

0.00

No Data Very 4.26 Poor Good 1.18Very 6.73 Poor Good 2.32 -0.37

-0.14 -3.98

0.02 -1.45

No Data Very 7.18 Poor Very 7.74 Poor

No Data Very 7.61 Poor Satisfactory 2.87

-0.49 10.97

0.40

-0.49 10.97

0.08 Very 7.16 Poor Satisfactory 3.49 No 10.02 Data 0.27 No Data Very 9.15 Poor

Good

Good

No Data Very 9.15 Poor

No3.72 Data -0.32

0.00

Satisfactory Very 4.42 Poor Good 0.97Very 6.06 Poor Good 1.14 0.00 No Data Very 7.04 Poor Good 2.02

0.15

No2.12 Data -0.28

No Data Very 4.99 Poor Good 1.19

-0.14

Satisfactory Very 4.6 Poor Satisfactory 1.32 Satisfactory 5.1 Good 2.12 -1.10

-0.04

-0.62 0.00

-0.34

No 10.44 Data 0.23

Very 3.79 Poor Satisfactory 1.2 Satisfactory 3.96 Good 1.64 -0.72

Good

Satisfactory Very 6.03 Poor Good 1.57

Satisfactory Very 6.39 Poor Very 4.89 Poor

Poor

0.32

0.01

Very 4.85 Poor Satisfactory 2.3 Satisfactory 3.99 0.00

-0.11

0.00

No4.37 Data -0.36

Good

Very 7.17 Poor Good 2.36

-0.72

Satisfactory Very 4.17 Poor Good 0.94 Satisfactory 4.66 Good 1.15 -0.10

Satisfactory Very 3.98 Poor Very 4.53 Poor

No Data Very 7.18 Poor Very 5.45 Poor

-5.45

-0.07

Satisfactory Very 4.44 Poor Good 0.89 Poor 5.4 Good 1.11 -0.65

No7.51 Data -0.03

-0.46

Very 4.01 Poor Good 0.95 Poor 5.34 Good 1.67 0.42

Good

-0.67

No 28.61 Data -0.35

Satisfactory Very 7.69 Poor Very 7.77 Poor

Good

-4.54

No 45.72 Data -1.41

Satisfactory Very 6.46 Poor Super 7.93Red

No3.87 Data 0.07

0.02

Satisfactory Very 4.33 Poor Good 0.8 Poor 5.35 Good 1.37 -0.38

Poor

4.21

No 12.49 Data

0.12

-0.39

1.61

0.04

Satisfactory Very 6.34 Poor

Satisfactory Very 5.99 Poor PoorNo 3.39 7.7 Data No5.28 Data -0.03

Good

0.93

No79.3 Data -0.75 -14.59

No Data Very 7.13 Poor Satisfactory 4.03 No 13.93 Data -0.17

No Data Very 7.2 Poor Super 16.94 Red

No Data Very 6.78 Poor Satisfactory 3.61 No7.98 Data 0.11

0.00

-0.18

No Data Very 6.66 Poor Satisfactory 3.01No9.72 Data No 13.81 Data -0.62 Satisfactory Very 3.94 Poor Good 0.75Very 4.92 Poor Good 1.34 -0.72 Satisfactory Very 4.21 Poor Poor 1.91Very 7.24 Poor Satisfactory 2.96 0.00

-0.24

-0.21 11.86

Satisfactory Very 3.91 Poor Good 1.06 Poor 4.71 Good 1.83 -0.17

No Data Very 6.82 Poor

-0.19

No Data Very 7.2 Poor Very 5.36 Poor

No 13.22 Data -0.22

-0.27

-6.56

No Data Very 7.52 Poor Good 2.33No 10.25 Data No 11.02 Data -0.25

0.61

-0.24

Satisfactory Very 4.08 Poor Good 0.83 Poor 4.93 Good 1.75 -0.17 No Data Very 8.63 Poor Super 17.56 Red

-0.24

-0.17

-0.53 16.49

No Data Very 8.97 Poor Satisfactory 4.82

No6.4 Data 0.95

No Data Very 8.73 Poor Poor 5.41

-0.15

0.23

-0.60

No Data Very 7.41 Poor Good 2.15 No Data Very 8.51 Poor

0.15

Satisfactory Very 9.28 Poor Super 21.66 Red -6.54

-0.06

Very 4.72 Poor Good 0.88Very 5.79 Poor Good 1.56 -0.07

Good

0.00

No Data Very 4.54 Poor Satisfactory 1.38Very 5.86 Poor Satisfactory 2.65 0.00

Poor

Good

0.00

No Data Very 3.5 Poor Satisfactory 1.01Very 4.47 Poor Good 1.24 -0.72

-0.33

Satisfactory Very 6.19 Poor PoorNo 3.49 8.97 Data No4.76 Data -0.17

-0.01 0.04

No3.4 Data 0.11

0.00

Satisfactory Very 4.2 Poor Satisfactory 1.05 Poor 4.22 Satisfactory 1.82 -1.54

Satisfactory Very 8.52 Poor Good 2.36

Very 3.73 Poor Satisfactory 1.25 Poor 4.93 Good 1.89 -0.72

0.00

Satisfactory Very 4.03 Poor Good 0.72Very 4.43 Poor Good 1.14 0.00 Good

-0.28

Satisfactory Very 6.12 Poor Very 5.33 Poor No7.68 Data No7.27 Data -0.23

-5.45 -0.28

No7.51 Data -0.03

AL 70

No8.76 Data -0.39

No Data Very 6.22 Poor Poor 3.39

No Data Very 7.18 Poor Very 5.45 Poor

MT 70

AL 35 ROC

AL 35 -0.08

WT 35

WT 35 ROC

Earthwork Condition

Track Geometry

Satisfactory Very 4.2 Poor Good 0.69 Poor 4.78 Good 0.91 0.05

Earthworks

TG Next Run Period

TG Next Run Week Nos

TG Next Run Days

TG Next Run WK Range

Plain Line Defects and S&C Faults

Cyclic Top Dip Angle Twist Recomended Action Gauge Alignment Keep WAIF Done

Plain Line and S&C WAIFS

£10,092

£6,322

£4,837

£1,063

£4,488

£1,595

WAIFS Cost

WT35 Geometry SD Very Poor AL35 Geometry SD MT70 Geometry SD AL70 Geometry SD WT35% Used in Band AL35% Used in Band WT35 Days to Red AL35 Days to Red

26

88

24

20

26

87

53

36

23

53

6

64

21

46

46

33

22

6

13

24

58

26

73

88

34

1

99

82

92

40

7

39

6

100

21

25

10

23

60

86

29

16

51

55

90

32

24

100

74

21

43

42

13

27

59

61

26

55

42

27

98

23

29

73

71

14

21

61

55

80

26

50

75

39

1

91

75

9

91

44

75

88

79

3

33

79

14

80

72

87

7

68

23

68

73

76

98

45

75

77

73

48

43

62

10

87

96

69

22

75

54

96

21

86

75

91

68

80

7

68

10

73

67

44

2

21

8

79

21

72

40

10

7

63

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

Cyclic

WT35% AL35% Cyclic Used in Used in Band Band

TG SD % Used

Track Linear View

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

D Corr:maintenance

LB (Correct:60d)

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

LC Corr:maintenance

D Corr:maintenance

LI (Correct:14d)

Correct 14 days

Correct 28 days

Correct 14 days

Correct 14 days

D Corr:maintenance

C (Correct :60d)

Correct 14 days

C (Correct :60d)

LC Corr:maintenance

B (36h 30ESR:30d)

D Corr:maintenance

LB (Correct:60d)

C (Correct :60d)

Correct 14 days

Correct 14 days

Correct 28 days

D Corr:maintenance

C (Correct :60d)

C (Correct :60d)

Correct 14 days

Correct 28 days

C (Correct :60d)

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

Correct 14 days

D Corr:maintenance

D Corr:maintenance

D Corr:maintenance

D Corr:maintenance

C+A (36h 30ESR:14d)

C (Correct :60d)

Correct 14 days

Correct 14 days

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

C (Correct :60d)

Correct 28 days

LC Corr:maintenance

C+A (36h 30ESR:14d)

Correct 14 days

Correct 14 days

C+A (36h 30ESR:14d)

Correct 28 days

LB (Correct:60d)

Correct 28 days

Correct 28 days

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

Correct 28 days

D Corr:maintenance

LC Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

B (36h 30ESR:30d)

Correct 14 days

LA (Correct:30d)

Correct 14 days

A (36h 30ESR:14d)

Correct 28 days

Correct 28 days

D Corr:maintenance

Correct 14 days

Twist

Twist

Twist

Twist

Twist

Twist

Dip Twist

Dip Twist

Dip

Dip Twist

Dip

Dip

Dip

Dip Twist

Twist

Dip Twist

Gauge Align

Gauge Align

Gauge

Gauge

Gauge

Align

Align

Align

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Dip Twist Gauge Align CYC Angl ment N e Miss Speed

INM Segment Dashboard

Export to MS Excel

Exceedances & Level 2 Faults

Recommended Action

Intervention

Geometry

Clear Filter

Filter

AND

Proof of Concept Tool - 220 Yards Segments Summary

WT35 DTSR

23380

1444

1176

3570

AL35 DTSR

20000

20000

1191

20000

901 4779

712

7224

101

20000

1083

20000

2807

650

128

1136

20000

564

20000

16

3075

20000

20000

1553

4088

615

35

20000

20000

47

20000

11913

20000

1176

20000

20000

1872

20000

7602

218

20000

20000

20000

26

6589

20000

1383

291

4

26

16884

20000 20000

79

291

20000

225

62

20000 20000

225

116

20000 20000

142

36

71

540

20000

20000 20000

633

309

56

36

153

20000 20000

74

20000

1

72

11

57

20000 20000

201

20000 20000

0

105

143

20000 20000

579

20000

23

19

20000 20000

20000 20000

59

359

152

0

20

20000

303

20000 20000

20000

81

20000

20000 20000

464

20000 20000

85

20000 20000

20000 20000

93

72

9

20000 42224

99

20000 20000

110

23

36

20000

34

14

14

46

7

34

TG Run 26-Jan-28

AL35 SR Date

KEY Dates

#########

#########

05-Oct-20

05-Jul-18

29-May-21

30-Mar-20

#########

26-Apr-18

24-Jan-20

05-Apr-21

25-Dec-25

04-Jul-18

18-Sep-26

#########

#########

28-Jun-29

24-Dec-19

23-May-18

#########

03-Mar-18

27-Apr-24

#########

22-Nov-18

19-Mar-20

#########

#########

09-Jul-23

04-Feb-19

22-Apr-18

06-Jul-18

04-Feb-19

03-May-18

03-May-18

31-Jan-22

15-Dec-25 23-May-18

15-May-18

#########

15-May-18

30-May-18 #########

30-Nov-18

20-Jun-18

01-Jul-19

30-Nov-18

12-Aug-18 #########

08-Sep-18

24-May-18 04-Jun-23

28-Jun-18

11-Oct-19

03-Jul-18

11-Jan-20

22-Feb-19

14-Jun-18

25-May-18 08-Jul-21

19-Sep-18

02-Jul-18

08-Oct-18

19-Apr-18

29-Jun-18

29-Apr-18

15-Jun-18

09-Feb-19

05-Nov-18 19-Jul-22

19-Apr-18

02-Aug-18

08-Sep-18

27-Dec-18

18-Nov-19 28-Nov-22

21-May-18 04-Nov-19

12-May-18 03-Sep-18

07-May-18 02-Apr-18

05-Oct-19

17-Jun-18

13-Apr-19

18-Sep-18

19-Apr-18

09-May-18 29-Jan-20

04-Dec-18 11-Dec-17 04-Jun-18

16-Feb-19

05-Oct-18

31-Jul-18

09-Jul-18

Next TG Run Date

15-Dec-25 23-May-18

23-Jul-21

13-Nov-25

06-Dec-18 08-Jan-18

28-Jul-18

27-Jul-19

13-Jul-18

01-Jul-19

21-Jul-18

30-Jun-18

28-Apr-18

21-Mar-20 #########

26-Jul-18

06-Aug-18 #########

11-May-18 02-Apr-22

25-May-18 08-Jul-21

17-Oct-20

WT35 SR Date

Print Form

Super Red

Very Poor

Poor

Satisfactory

Good

All Geometry Data

N Y

165 102 80

N Y N N Y

P02

8 WK

61 20 53 41

Y Y Y N Y Y

50 43 34 38 10

Y N Y Y

21

30

37

Y

N

N Y

Y

49

N

28

20

4

Y N

23

12

N

N N

5

N

2

15

N

14

10

Y

Y

35

N

N

10

N

77

10

30

10

30

9

30

8

16

38

26

58

26

16

34

58

34

8

4

5

2

12

5

10

36

28

8

44

N

23 8

20

N

11

8

41

42

Y

10

N N

30

15

78

N

10

254

46

76

95

123

119

21

N

29

115

Y

5 WK

81

N

P02

141

10

16

32

Y N Y

362

5

477

N

121 97

398

Y

114

293

5

190

708

217

147

639

53

12

19

14

35

46

5

96

5

182

40

33

77

65

54

30

N

402

Y

5 WK

873

Y

P02

1008

Y

242

230 1431

Y

12

76

36

70

108

104

5

N

10 WK

4 WK

8 WK

148

42

44

18

42

168

81

62

10

92

106

53

61

52

51

102

85

77

20

79

50

80

77

123

83

107

140

87

40

20

18

29

21

28

18

35

48

43

37

48

58

40

23

63

99

23

409

235

265

207

379

344

288

110

132

43

269

161

198

558

138

304

851

255

217

882

101

150

120

85

94

193

164

174

247

212

210

91

183

204

159

112

WAIF TG L2 Risk Score Score Score

1587

P03

P01

P02

WK

N Y

N N

Y N

N Y

Y N

N N

Y Y

Y Y Y

WAIF Period DN

116

91

95

95

101

102

106

107

20

116

78

121

130

143

144

156

160

110

54

22

22

29

33

33

33

45

83

53

81

56

58

60

64

73

177

52

524

315

367

372

379

425

429

472

164

520

269

559

600

800

1011

1312

2282

485

229

2469

177

186

190

193

198

198

312

216

291

230

252

259

264

266

169

204

17

30

47

32

14

20

18

21

2

19

39

40

65

24

29

31

27

37

27

22

22

3

33

33

33

23

83

53

40

14

19

60

64

36

29

52

48

29

31

37

29

28

33

67

21

173

19

186

75

53

112

119

163

243

33

190

59

21

32

39

49

18

35

43

19

115

23

65

44

27

19

41

Risk AVG Score Risk WAIFs Score

Risk Score

CTSR

C H TSR TSR

Keep

###### HC

N

NA

CN

###### HC

C

BA

LE

SA

BA

N

NA

WJ

M

LE

TS

CN

N

M

M

LE

#####CG

M

C

DS

DB

CN

M

LE

BA

C

M

C

CD

LE

M

FH

RY

DS

CN

#####PB

CG

NA

LE

FH

RB

#####LS

PR

WJ

CR

RB

RB

RB

NS

WJ

#####PB

M

DS

M

M

C

SA

LE

CB

CG

SN

LE

C

CB

CB

#####CG

C

S A C P S O C G M

PERMANENT WAY 49

(Graph on page 48) One miles of data at the 13m wavelength. As can be seen, there are several cycles where the amplitude to the wave crosses the threshold of 4.5mm at around 35m0825yds, indicating a cyclic top event (threee or more peaks).

The middle chart shows potential precursors (wet beds) to this cyclic top event.

50

PERMANENT WAY

CHRIS PARKER

Total Rail Solutions

T

otal Rail Solutions (TRS) was founded in January 2007, primarily as a consultancy business, with a £200,000 turnover. However, by late 2008, the company began to develop into other markets within the rail industry, especially the provision of operated and managed road-rail plant which it was able to buy second-hand. In the process, TRS obtained a Rail Plant Operating Company Licence.

The years 2009 to 2013 saw the company grow from strength to strength and, with the start of CP5 imminent, a decision was made by the owners to invest for the future. A plan to give TRS the newest fleet of machines in the UK was drawn up, on the proviso that the new fleet was designed for today’s modern railway rather than just going with existing designs.

Roll forward four years and, following a £12 million investment, the Basingstokebased company has grown such that it now has a turnover in the region of £28 million annually and around 83 machines. Most of the fleet of mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs) and road-rail vehicles (RRVs) is under three years old, making this the most up-todate fleet of specialist plant available to the UK rail industry.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Key partnership Crucial to the company’s recent successes, according to Paul Bateman, TRS chief operating officer, has been the partnership with GOS Tool & Engineering Services (GOS). TRS made the contact with GOS owner Neil Gregory, realising the need to invest in a modern and expanding fleet. TRS was looking at the options for doing this and made the choice that GOS

had the expertise and facilities to assist in designing and building a new generation of RRV machines.

GOS had been working with Doosan for over 10 years. The high levels of reliability and OEM support gave TRS the confidence to pick the new Doosan DX170 machines as the base for its new fleet of RRVs. Having taken delivery of the first Doosan DX170 in 2014, and being very pleased with the outcome, the two companies began collaborating on the renewal and enlargement of the TRS fleet, starting with an initial order for six Doosanbased machines. These machines have delivered industry-leading availability and reliability and have led to continued investment by TRS with GOS.

The 20th Doosan When Rail Engineer met up with Paul and Neil at the GOS works, the 20th Doosan-based RRV was parked outside the workshops in gleaming new paint and TRS

PERMANENT WAY livery, awaiting delivery to its customer.

They shook hands beside the machine for a photograph to accompany this article, in recognition of the completion of TRS’s three-year investment programme. This delivery makes TRS the first operator in the UK to have taken delivery of 20 new Doosan-based excavators, not to mention three Doosan RRV cranes!

Commenting upon the partnership and the choice of Doosan-based machines, Neil said: “We both took a chance, the relationship has been very good for both of us.”

A key part of the excellent relationship between the companies has been the understanding between them at a technical level, led by Luke Hersee, TRS head of operations, and GOS’s director of rail engineering Carl Jones. Encouraged by their respective bosses, and inspired by the requirements of customers, these two and their teams have innovated and developed many new modifications and improvements to the machines in the TRS fleet.

One of the most important of these has been ‘the long dipper’, a 5.5-metre-long dipper arm for the RRVs that has proven so successful with the TRS clients that, according to Paul, all the standard dippers are now laid up at his depot whilst the machines almost always go out to site with the long ones fitted. This device was developed and brought into use about two years ago.

GOS’s design, development and fabrication skills have been vital to the success of this piece of equipment, ensuring that it has the strength and robustness required on site, whilst also being sufficiently light to maximise the lifting capacity available.

GOS facilities Rail Engineer was given the opportunity to walk around the GOS workshops and assembly shop, guided by Neil. The range of machinery and skills on display was very impressive. The latest CNC techniques are employed to cut and profile parts while coded welders use modern equipment to assemble the pieces into fabrications for items such as rail trailers, dipper arms and more.

In the assembly shop was a mobile flash butt welding RRV. Based on a Doosan machine, it was one of several being produced for a railway in Australia, and almost ready for the 45-odd days at sea that will see it delivered to its purchasers.

Other machines there were RRVs from UK plant companies - some new, some old ones under refurbishment.

Neil Gregory (left), managing director GOS Engineering, with Total Rail Solutions' Paul Bateman.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

51

52

PERMANENT WAY The future

There were some very interesting machines being used in the workshop, including a couple of old Herbert lathes that the writer’s father-in-law would have recognised. Old, but still very much productive. There was an 84" Lumsden rotary grinding machine eight feet in diameter, and a lathe holding work, 5 metres between centres. There were also facilities for heat-treating components.

Quality control is tight, with raw materials being marked and tracked right through to the finished article. Details such as the supplier and relevant certification documents can be traced and linked to completed items. Welding is only carried out by fully qualified individuals, and GOS employs an NDT (non-destructive testing) consultant who carries out random and unannounced tests on welds in the workshops in addition to any testing specified by a client.

More innovations 18 months ago, TRS and GOS collaborated on the introduction of hydrostatic drives to the DX170 fleet.

Reliance upon friction between the rubber tyres of the road wheels and the steel rail ones had its limitations. These restricted the capabilities of the machines, particularly when operating on gradients or in difficult conditions. The hydrostatic drive direct to the rail wheels eliminates those issues completely.

Slightly more recently came the introduction of RRV cranes, based again on a Doosan machine. For the size and weight of the resultant crane, it has extremely competitive reach and lifting capacities. It is self-levelling on cant up to 200mm and, when levelled, has 360-degree capability.

The maximum load is 12 tonnes, to a maximum height of 16 metres, and the maximum radius of operation is 15.5 metres. Like the other machines in the TRS fleet, these cranes have proven to be popular and are in high demand with users.

Of course, such new developments are not always right first time, but the working relationships between the two company

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

teams are such that the focus, when problems do occur, is always upon solving the issues.

Rail PPS TRS participates in the Rail Plant Performance System (Rail PPS), a webbased plant performance monitoring system developed specifically for Network Rail and managed by the IP Track plant reliability team. Initially a little nervous about getting into this, Paul told Rail Engineer that the company is now reaping benefits from taking it on. It shows, through industry-leading statistics such as availability and reliability, that TRS’s investment in new machines and its development work with GOS is delivering the goods.

Paul and Neil told Rail Engineer that they find that the Doosan-based machines have a very high level of reliability, consequently the TRS machines are in high demand.

TRS has a number of framework agreements in place with a selection of companies such as AMCO and Siemens.

To support these and other clients, the company is committed to future investment plans such as the one with GOS. Both companies see that the economic environment has improved markedly in the last 10 years, but they see the need for major projects such as Crossrail and HS2 to maintain confidence across the industry. Finance may be more readily available, but companies will only take the risk of using it if they see continuity and predictability of profitable workload far enough into the future to make that worthwhile.

At the same time, TRS sees the need for investment in new plant and techniques.

Issues such as the ever-reducing track access available on the railway mean that there is always going to be the requirement to find new approaches to getting the work done.

To finish with a quotation from Paul: “We (TRS) want to be set apart from the crowd, to be at the forefront of innovation and design. If we see a need in the market and there’s a business case for it, we will go ahead and buy one.”

With companies like TRS, supported by others like GOS, there is room for real optimism about the future.

54

PERMANENT WAY

A Little Sand

in the Right Place

Works Wonders Part 2, the Results

MALCOLM DOBELL

L

Fig 2 - Sand discharge and sand laying rates for fixed and variable rate sanders.

ast year (issue 157, November 2017), Rail Engineer contained an article with a very similar title covering tests using additional

sanders and variable-rate discharge sand valves on two Class 387 EMUs at RIDC Melton. The article was upbeat, describing a multi-disciplinary, multicompany team of people working well together delivering useful tests with promising results.

This is the follow up - the “now the truth can be told” article - and the news is good. It’s sufficient to say that there was a strong requirement to understand sanding better and this series of tests was important. The results and challenges faced by the project team was the subject of a session in early February 2018 hosted by RSSB.

trains closer together”. Both quoted statements are from the Rail Technical Strategy Capability Delivery Plan and are prerequisites of capacity improvement.

There would also be safety and economic benefit.

The objective:

The tests:

The objective was to establish whether the use of either more sanders and/ or variable-rate delivery sanders could deliver or contribute to delivering a reliable brake rate of 6%g (0.6m/s2) in challenging adhesion conditions. If this rate could be achieved consistently, it would deliver the objective of predictable, seasonally agnostic braking, thus enabling year-round “services timed and delivered to the second”, and consistent and safe “running of

The following tests were carried out (sander locations illustrated in figure 1): »» Establishing benchmark performance applying step-3 brake (9%g demand) where low adhesion conditions were created with a coefficient of friction (µ) down to 0.02 - a figure which, although extremely low, is encountered by most TOCs several times a day during the autumn; »» Performance of a standard Class 387 unit with axle-3 sanders - the standard

configuration; »» Performance of eight-car train of two Class 387 units with both units’ axle-3 sanders enabled; »» Test of fixed rate sanders on axle 3 and on axle 7 or 11 on a four-car set; »» Test of variable rate sanders on axle 3 and axles 7 or 11 on a four-car set.

The fixed rate sanders dispense sand at the rate of 2kg/min with a cut off at 10mph. Variable-rate sanders dispense sand at the rate of 4kg/min down to 20mph and then ramp down to comply with the 7.5g/metre requirement, as illustrated in figure 2.

Both types comply with current standards, which were originally established to ensure train detection when operating over legacy low voltage DC track circuits.

Fig 1 - Location of original and additional sander positions.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

PERMANENT WAY The previous article described the testing process, which involved laying 96km of paper tape on the 1km low adhesion section, and running over 225 tests, of which 147 were sanded and 78 un-sanded. The brake cylinder pressures and axle speeds were monitored for all 16 (four-car) or 32 (eight-car) axles, as were train speed, doppler radar (for measuring speed independent of wheel speed), longitudinal acceleration and sander pressure.

Video recordings were made of axle-3 sanders.

Fig 6 - Braking distance for various sanding configurations: full service brake demand 55mph (initial µ = 0.02).

Fig 3 - Adhesion per axle with fixed and variable sanding - average test results.

The results: The results were presented in impressive detail and the highlights are summarised here.

Fig 3 shows how mean adhesion at each axle varies with each configuration of sanders against the base, no-sanding, lowadhesion condition. The result for three cases are described; no sand (black line), fixed-rate sanding on axles 3 and 7 (solid red line) and variable-rate sanding on axles 3 and 7 (dashed red line).

The average result for un-sanded tests shows µ for axles 1 and 2 of 0.03 (the same value for all configurations as axles 1 and 2 are not sanded) rising fairly smoothly to >0.04 at the back of the train. For the fixed-rate sanders, µ increases to 0.07 before falling back to 0.055 at axle 6.

The additional sand at axle 7 delivers µ of 0.09, which gently decays to a value of 0.065 for axle 16.

For variable-rate sanders at axles 3 and 7, µ increases to 0.085 at axle 3 and remains above 0.08 until axle 15.

The other cases not described in detail cover single axle3 sanders (green lines - solid for fixed rate and dashed for variable rate) and sanders on axles 3 and 11 (blue lines - solid for fixed rate and dashed for variable rate).

Fig 4 - Stopping distance vs initial reference adhesion single sander, fixed and variable-rate.

Figures 4 and 5 show the benefit of the increased adhesion in reduced stopping distance. The diagram shows stopping distance against initial reference adhesion for no sand (black diamond) single fixed-rate sander (green circle) and single variable-rate sander (green triangle). This shows that a useful benefit is delivered by changing single axle fixed-rate sanders to variable rate.

Dual variable-rate sanders (purple triangles) can deliver quite consistent stopping distances that are very close to the values that would be obtained on dry rail (horizontal dashes). The near-horizontal purple line was a very pleasant surprise to most people involved in adhesion management. They had been expecting a result closer to the green lines of figure 4.

All these results are for the 4-car Class 387 unit. Of course, many shorter trains run on the network, and the results for shorter trains were estimated. Assuming standard practice was to be adopted, that there will be at least six axles behind the last sander in order to manage the risk of failure to operate track circuits, likely configurations would be variable-rate sanders on axle 3 for a two-car unit and on axles 3 and 7 for a three-car unit. There was confidence that a three-car train would deliver results consistent with the four-car unit, but more work would be necessary to have the same confidence for the two-car unit.

Does this answer the exam question?

A resounding yes! For the four-car tests, with two variable rate sanders on axles 3 and 7, a deceleration rate of 6%g was consistently delivered in challenging adhesion conditions. This is clearly illustrated in figure 6, showing the

Fig 5 - Stopping distance vs initial reference adhesion dual variable-rate sanders.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

55

56

PERMANENT WAY

Implementing Dual Variable-Rate Sanders

incremental benefit of various sanding configurations when a step-3 full service brake is applied at 55mph with the initial reference adhesion of 0.02. Note, the un-sanded stopping distance of >1,200 metres is estimated as the low-adhesion test section was 1,000 metres long.

The project team concluded that dual variable-rate sanders could be implemented today for three-car, fourcar and longer trains, whereas some further thinking is required for two-car units.

Would dual variable rate sanders use more sand? It was estimated that each axle’s variable-rate sanders would use no more sand than a single fixed-rate sander, so sand boxes would not need filling any more frequently, albeit there would be twice as many to fill.

The benefits

reduced by over 90 per cent. For improving the railway of the future, this work provides important capabilities in order to move to a railway where services are timed to the second and trains run closer together.

Neil Ovenden of the Rail Delivery Group, and chair of the Adhesion Research Group, described this work as “the biggest advance in seasonal adhesion management in the last 20 years”, adding “we have finally quantified differences between, and benefit of, four different sanding configurations.”

The project can be declared a complete success and is a great tribute to the industry and all the hard work of everyone involved for pulling off such a complex programme. The next steps are to implement the results with pace and passion - a significant challenge in itself.

The objective of demonstrating that 6%g braking can be consistently delivered has been achieved. For today’s railway, the findings suggest that SPADS and platform overruns caused by low adhesion could be

Thanks to Claire Grewer, Steve Mills and Paul Gray of RSSB, Liam Purcell - Ricardo Rail, Andrew Lightoller - DB ESG Rail, and Neil Ovenden - Rail Delivery Group.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

The results of the dual and variable-rate sander tests are truly spectacular. However they will have no value unless implemented on the UK’s large passenger fleet.

There will be in the order of 5000 individual units (2 - 11 cars) to modify, including a large number of new vehicles on order. This is a big challenge to the industry.

What has to be done?

Based entirely on the author’s experience, at least the following tasks are required for each main class: »» Business cases to be developed and agreed, together with securing funds where the medium to long term business case is good but where the short term case is poor (for example towards the end of a franchise); »» Conclude the ideal configuration for two-car and units longer than four-cars (5,7,9,11); »» Confirm that the ideal configuration for a four-car unit is appropriate for eight-car and 12-car trains composed of fourcar units; »» For some trains WSP (wheelslip prevention) will need to be fitted; »» Sanding and WSP suppliers will need to develop hardware (such as variable-rate valves) and software to control the sanders differently from today, followed by testing and validation; »» System and application safety/ assurance cases/technical files will need to be modified and assessed and, if the change is classed as significant, authorised by the regulator; »» Change orders will need to be negotiated and contractors appointed; »» Depots will need to be modified to handle more sanders and will probably need to store more sand.

Rail Engineer looks forward to reporting progress.

Reduce Costs The rail industry is changing, fast. The need to improve efficiency and reliability, whilst minimising disruption and costs has never been greater.

Innovative solutions are needed.

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

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

1 - 3 May 2018 - Stand D51 ExCel, London - UK

20 - 21 June 2018 - Stand F7 Quinton Rail Technology Centre - UK

Road Crossings

//

Road Rail Access

//

Pedestrian Crossings

//

Anti-Trespass

SLEEPER SPACING INDEPENDENT

58

FEATURE

Hyperloop prospects and challenges

GARETH DENNIS

T

he much-vaunted Hyperloop, sometimes described by its proponents as the ‘fifth mode of transport’, uses the premise of pods travelling through evacuated tubes to offer high-speed inter-city transport. The concept was first attributed to US-based technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, and independent backers are popping up across the globe, amid huge amounts of publicity.

On paper, the concept is a clever one, extrapolating Newton’s First Law to remove as much air resistance as possible to reduce the required motive force to achieve the desired speeds. The technology itself is not revolutionary, simply comprising a pod elevated and driven forwards by magnetic levitation in a tube pumped to a near vacuum.

Some progress has been made by the various competing Hyperloop developers.

Virgin Hyperloop One, for example, has built a 500 m ‘DevLoop’ test ring in the Nevada desert, where it has demonstrated the technological union of maglev and

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

vacuum tube. Acceleration, top speed, the pressurised cabin environment and associated emergency arrangements are all very similar to those utilised in commercial air travel. But, for all the attention lavished upon Hyperloop, there are fundamental problems that must be overcome before any commercial application is realistic.

Hardt Global Mobility.

Straight, underground Steel-wheel high-speed rail can have a design speed of up to 400km/h (250mph), and it is common for curves to be 10km or more in radius. Whilst Hyperloop will probably permit tighter curves than a railway, it aspires to a design speed of up to 1,100km/h (690mph).

As with conventional railway alignments, Hyperloop will rotate the plane of its guideway as curvature increases to reduce the forces on passengers. Yet it seems unlikely that a guideway could be tilted enough to avoid a near-straight alignment, with inertial forces on passengers being comparable to those in

FEATURE

Hardt Global Mobility.

a jet aircraft. This, in turn, is likely to mean the tubes would be underground in most applications.

Switches pose another huge technological hurdle. One solution includes relying solely on the guidance of the linear motors for switching - at

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies.

1,100km/h the consequences of a failure would be catastrophic and creating a successful safety case would be difficult.

Another option would involve the mechanical shifting of vacuum tube segments to create a continuous through or turnout route. However, for a switch

that would be around 1,000Â metres long, managing detection and the interface with the control system, all whilst maintaining a vacuum, would be immensely challenging.

The vacuum tube concept also throws up some technical gremlins. Thermal expansion effects on the tubes can be managed by using materials with a reduced thermal expansion coefficient and by constructing expansion joints between each tube segment. However, these expansion joints would have to be strong enough to withstand the pressures from the vacuum within, increasing their cost greatly.

In an emergency, or in the case of a pump failure, the tube would have to be returned to atmospheric pressure: all this requires is a valve controlling the ingress of air. The problems start when the vacuum needs to be restored. With regular airlocks, you could not run a pod at speed from a vacuum into a section at atmospheric pressure. At 1,100km/h, this would be akin to driving a car into a concrete block.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

59

60

FEATURE

TransPod. But, if pods have to sit and wait for the correct pressure conditions to be achieved mid-service, delays could be considerable: the Hyperloop One test tube needs four hours to return to a vacuum over a 500-metre alignment.

Undoubtedly there will be more powerful pumps in any commercial specification, but this is still technology requiring radical development.

Energy and capacity Japan’s Chuo Shinkansen maglev is likely to use approximately three times more energy per seat than steel-wheel highspeed rail. While Hyperloop’s vacuum tubes will remove almost all aerodynamic friction, reducing the motive power needed to reach and sustain high speed, the self-same lack of aerodynamic drag will increase the power required to slow the pods down.

On top of this, the likely power consumption of the pumps maintaining the vacuum conditions must be considered.

Yet it is passenger capacity that is arguably the most fundamental challenge.

Using the UK’s planned High Speed 2 as a benchmark, high-speed rail capacity can be nearly 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, assuming 18 trains/hour, each with 1,100 seats, over a double-track alignment.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

If a Hyperloop pod had 50 seats, for example, then 400 pods would need to depart every hour at a nine-second headway to match HS2’s capacity.

Assuming the same number of seconds to alight from a Hyperloop pod as a train, 23 tubes would be needed to match HS2’s throughput.

None of this is to dismiss entirely Hyperloop’s prospects. Indeed, the eager and exceptional minds in organisations like VHO will doubtless continue their quest for answers. But no-one should yet claim that Hyperloop could replace steelwheel rail, which is far from the outdated mode some would assert.

For the foreseeable future, Hyperloop is likely to remain a technological experiment meriting private backing, rather than public funding.

Gareth Dennis, a senior permanent way engineer for an international design consultancy, leads the local section of the Permanent Way Institution and is a lecturer on track systems at the National College for High Speed Rail.

A version of this article first appeared in Railway Gazette International, reproduced here with permission.

FEATURE

Trimble GEDO IMS TMD Fast | Efficient | Accurate The Trimble GEDO IMS system, consists of a Trimble GEDO CE 2.0 and a high precision IMU (inertial measurement unit), the basis for running an efficient track survey and asset data collection. n

High productivity reduces time needed for track access

n

Increase speed for track survey up to 5000 m/h

n

No line of sight issues

n

High point density for analysis inner geometry

n

Integrated part of GEDO CE 2.0 family

n

Combination with geodetic sensors, profiler and laser scanner

n

Cost effective

n

Survey for track design and tamping work at lines without reference points

n

Lightweight

n

Fast initialisation time

Improving safety by reducing survey personnel on track Product launch details to be announced soon! Contact KOREC for further information.

www.korecgroup.com info@korecgroup.com tel UK: 0345 603 1214 IRE: 01 456 4702

See KOREC at Rail Live on 20 - 21June

RailvacÂŽ OTM - More than 500 point ends excavated in the UK! Always non-intrusive, with the track in situ and without disconnections!

Join us at RailLive where we will demo Railvac OTM + Ballast Feeder industry reballasting concept.

www.railcare.co.uk Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

61

62

FEATURE

Performance or Capacity?

REBEKA SELLICK

A

recent conference organised by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), asked “Capacity or Performance - Either or Both?” The answer, of course, is both. Capacity (more people and freight transported per hour) and performance (punctuality and reliability obviously, also journey times) are possibly the biggest challenges faced by the UK rail industry.

The more difficult question “How to deliver improvements in a cost effective manner that balances both the short and long term?” received answers from strategic to technical, local to regional and nationwide, shared in publications and at events throughout 2017 and into 2018. With rail professionals aligned on their theories and the industry delivering in practice, can they engage effectively with Secretary of State Chris Grayling’s newly appointed Rail and HS2 ministers?

Could a professional consensus support renewed political will to deliver in future franchises, CP6 and beyond?

Last year - January 2017 But first, what did railway engineers do for us in 2017?

Although led by mechanical engineers, with contributions from civil and signalling colleagues, answers to “how can we enhance capacity?” and “is it

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

worth doing?” were included in the IMechE’s report ‘Increasing Capacity: Putting Britain’s Railways Back on Track’, published in January 2017 (as reported in Issue 148, February 2018).

Despite positive messaging from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), the nonspecialist ‘popular’ news media has

remained intent on grumbling about fare rises. Whilst there have been significant industry downsides of poor service, including those attributable to rail strikes, few rail passengers (or indeed members of the public) have grasped the astonishing fact that, over the past 20 years, national rail passenger-km rose 116 per cent; on London Underground by 83 per cent, and national freight was still up 34 per cent despite the sudden loss of power-station coal traffic.

Demand for rail is expected to continue to grow, given population growth, increasing road congestion and the

FEATURE Later in 2017

impact of current railway infrastructure and rolling stock investments including Crossrail and HS2.

The IMechE’s report explored interdisciplinary understanding of current railway capacity challenges and opportunities, alongside sufficient technical background to make them accessible to the general (and political) reader. Case studies of capacity improvements that have been delivered increased in complexity, starting from the relatively simple case of upgrading a self-contained system: the Victoria Line on London Underground.

Victoria enjoys the classic metro characteristics to optimise capacity and performance - identical trains in simple service patterns with managed dwell times. As built, in 1968, it was a world first in ATO (automatic train operation), delivering 27 trains per hour in 2012.

As upgraded, Victoria line delivers 36 trains per hour since April 2017 - a peak capacity of 36,000 people per hour per direction.

On national railways, realisable capacity and performance fall as complexity and dependencies increase. Trackwork simplification and platform lengthening in the Waterloo area (to accommodate longer trains which accelerate faster) have been key to squeezing more people-per-hour capacity for suburban and longer-distance Wessex routes out of London, bringing 110,000 people into London during each morning peak.

Building on this infrastructure and rolling stock success, signalling and train control solutions, such as closer running and enhanced route setting algorithms, are being explored.

Transport for the North’s capacity and performance improvements such as more frequent and longer trains, electrification and new fleets - are designed to reduce local road congestion, prompting modal shift onto rail. Further, chiming with the wider industrial strategy, growing rail capacity should also encourage economic growth, attracting companies from the South, creating jobs, enabling people to access training and re-training.

February’s IMechE and IRSE seminar on ATO for mainline railway systems identified why it’s hard and how much it would be worth having.

April 2017’s international biannual Stephenson Railway research conference in London provided an opportunity for the team to bring the IMechE’s ‘Increasing Capacity: Putting Britain’s Railways Back on Track’ to the attention of the political decision-makers for whom it was written. However, the snap General Election unfortunately drove the rail minister to withdraw from the VIP lunch at its launch. Meanwhile, undaunted, the technical work continued…

June 2017 saw signalling, infrastructure and traffic management system developments furthered by IRSE’s series of Digital Railway discussion workshops, building on the consensus that Automatic Train Operation and European Train Control System are not magic bullets for mixed traffic railways.

Irrespective of ATO and ETCS, performance and capacity can grow with incremental and innovative developments across the system,

Network capacity growth is core to HS2, which is extensively discussed elsewhere. In this context, suffice to say that wider rail network capacity opportunities and performance impacts are immense: interfaces, such as with flexible freight and cross-modal Mobilityas-a-Service smart concepts, are crucial to optimise transits and journeys into the next century.

such as signalling better aligned to different trains’ braking potential, train braking distance reduction (and consistency) through better sanding for adhesion, conflicting train moves eliminated through infrastructure modifications and every improvement being hardwired into the timetable and operationally managed to the second.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

63

64

FEATURE

The Independent Transport Commission (ITC) similarly developed its own April 2017 report ‘Classic Rail and Connected Cities’, with a seminar in July addressing ‘Overcrowding on Public Transport’. Grounded in rail infrastructure improvement and innovation deployment, the discussion broadened into multimodal transport planning for capacity solutions, acknowledging the need to resolve behavioural and disability challenges faced by travellers.

In November, the headlined IMechE conference asked: “Capacity or Performance - either or both?”

After acknowledging the apparent contradictions, consensus built on how they are jointly being addressed and improved. Successive presentations from rail industry professionals (not just engineers and operators but geographers and economists too) robustly affirmed that the best railways need, and can deliver, both - there shouldn’t be a trade-off between capacity and performance.

The railway should meet passenger priorities. Network Rail’s Simon Reay reminded the conference of Transport Focus’ research findings, which affirm that reliability is key and criticise industry’s reliance on punctuality measures such as PPM and CaSL. Arguably, PPM and CaSL implicitly endorse thresholds of ‘acceptable’ lateness, whereas every minute late reduces satisfaction, and it’s “my journey” that matters, not whenever the train gets to wherever is its destination.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

Further, PPM treats all trains as equal, whether they contain one passenger or 1,000. In reality, the direct impact of delay on passengers’ journeys can be captured by applying the Capacity Report’s ‘people per hour’ measure.

And, fundamentally, the impact of any delay can ripple across the connected network, eating into both capacity and performance elsewhere.

Measures of train performance Public performance measure (PPM) is the established official measure of national rail punctuality in Britain. It records the number and percentage of trains that arrive at their terminating station within five minutes of the published time for commuter services and within 10 minutes for long distance services. Punctuality is measured for all trains across the whole network, including cancelled services and delays caused by external factors (such as vandalism,

extreme weather and suicides). It is a holistic measure of how the railway performs for passengers.

Recognising the impact of serious delays on passengers’ plans and on service recovery, the cancellation and significant lateness (CaSL) measure was introduced in 2009, to supplement PPM. CaSL counts a train if it is cancelled at origin or en route, if the originating station is changed, if it fails to make a scheduled stop at a station and is significantly late (arriving at its terminating station 30 minutes or more late).

Right-time performance measures the percentage of trains arriving at their terminating station early or within 59 seconds of schedule. This measure is increasingly being adopted as the quality of this information improves to make right-time data more reliable.

Source: Network Rail

Myths exploded Inspiring as the case studies of individual projects like Crossrail and HS2 are, one ‘take home’ from the conference was the myths of performance and capacity conflict that were exploded and the approaches shared for improving both: through planning, industry structure and change management.

Myth 1 - Don’t plan accurately: pad out for performance and let capacity suffer!

Some suggest padding out the timetable to ensure technically ‘on-time’ arrivals at terminal stations. This is suboptimal as a customer concept, because it elongates scheduled journey times and doesn’t address journeys to intermediate stations. Accurate timetabling not only sharpens punctuality throughout a route and shortens journey times but also drives on-time arrival at key nodes and

FEATURE

junctions, unlocking maximum capacity (not to mention minimising energy use and carbon impact).

Perhaps surprisingly, run-times are not universally accurate: a bigger data haystack can help otherwise-invisible unreliability needles to be identified. For example, Paul Naylor of CPC Systems described TfL’s Jubilee line software drill down below threshold reporting and beyond levels noticeable to staff, finding systematic delays of 10 or 15 seconds on almost every train approaching West Hampstead which, once known, could be addressed and removed, improving effective capacity and performance.

Even today’s computing power, informed by expert judgement, does not produce perfectly resilient timetables.

Chris Rowley’s Network Rail drone sample found that 39 trains were brought to a stand in the Norwood Junction area over less than two hours on a non-perturbed day because of small variations in right-time presentation, constrained by the conflicting moves timetabled. Larry Fawkner of Cogitare is integrating performance measurement and simulation to close the feedback loop from real day-to-day variability into planning.

Like any process, narrowing the spread of results will optimise results, close to Oliver Bratton’s MTR heart as the Elizabeth line’s performance will critically depend upon right-time presentation of trains into the central CBTC-controlled area.

Myth 2 - Industry structure needs overturning: re-privatise/ re-nationalise!

Chris Gibb (of recent railway performance investigation fame) asserted that the whole system is under strain, both from traffic and demand growth, and from the industry structure, where it can be hard for individual companies to make collective decisions or to work for the best long-term outcome. But no one at the conference advocated embarking on wholesale structural change and Chris asserted that teamwork was key, irrespective of control.

DfT should define franchises to incentivise the best use of paths by the busiest trains (such as when Gatwick Express was consolidated into GTR) to maximise route capacity. Industry should promote the use of full train lengths, spreading passenger loading by extending platform roofing and carefully locating waiting rooms. Ticketing and

fares are not simply a commercial issue but critically impact on capacity and performance.

Passengers don’t look at PPM when making choices between modes; few non-rail users want faster services but most want convenience, although adding new stations will make end-to-end services slower and soak up capacity, precluding more frequent services.

Conversely, Rob Warnes of Northern Rail explained that, sometimes, performance straightforwardly drives better connectivity. Northern has created capacity and a more robust timetable for May 2018 by increasing through running, for example across central Manchester.

Reversals on the other side of the central area are enabled by relatively small infrastructure investments, such as an extra bay platform at Bolton, which also allows signallers to re-order trains and reduce conflicting moves.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

65

66

FEATURE Myth 3 - Competing companies can’t cooperate, so performance and capacity are suboptimal.

Much is made of the negative impact of competing rail companies, but Rob Warnes cited capacity and performance improvement by cooperation, explaining how TPE and Northern dispatchers support each other at Piccadilly’s through-platforms to reduce station dwell. Simple physical changes, such as re-siting the train-ready-to-start buttons, facilitate staff coordination, whilst overall passenger flow is improved (and crowding limited) by removing platform clutter and re-locating information screens. The Northern Hub scheme originally included building additional through-platforms for greater capacity: however, this was on hold pending Department for Transport evaluation of a digital signalling alternative.

Dick Fearn, independent chair of the new Western Route Supervisory Board, has no executive authority but brings managing directors of track and train companies (freight and passenger) together with Transport Focus to optimise strategic priorities.

They are exploring how to realistically accommodate traffic growth, managing emerging risks to deliver performance now and into the future while coordinating across a system to deliver customer expectations.

Several train company directors and managers who took part, and who do have executive authority, asserted the undoubted value of experience yet acknowledged that, to make the most of the existing railway, they need to make best use of new technologies and new thinkers.

Lessons to be learned Presenters shared today’s mix of hightech drones and big data, sophisticated software and bold management, to help enable empathic and engaged employees to deliver high-performance, high-capacity services with “vim and brio”, as Geoff Hobbs of TfL put it.

The conference invited government to heed professional advice from industry to funders, particularly regarding incentives and investment.

In conclusion, the IMechE pointed to the future, how to enable the next step change in capacity railways to help shape a better world. It highlighted the continuing modal shift from road to rail (future-proofing Autonomous road vehicles and embracing the emerging Mobility-as-a-Service culture), the economic benefits (national and regional, shifting growth north from the overheating southeast) and the reduction of CO2 and other harmful emissions, particularly as air quality consciousness rises.

In return, the industry looked to government to hear what is needed to get the most out of the current rail system, supporting Network Rail and operators to unlock these opportunities.

Government should recognise the need for significant enhancements to unlock

big capability improvements, supporting the development and evaluation of schemes and technologies that the rail industry, devolved authorities and the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) will bring forward, including a truly robust electrification programme.

But this was not to be. In February 2018, while rail engineers were digesting the aspiration of the new rail minister, Jo Johnson, to phase out diesels by 2040, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling confirmed cuts to electrification plans.

Then, in March 2018, speaking at the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport seminar entitled ‘Next Steps for the UK’s Railway Infrastructure’, I asserted that the challenge to government is investment. Public money will deliver more railway capacity and performance if more private sector funding can be unlocked, with: 1. A transport-wide, future-proof vision (integrating rail for sustainable mass transit, freight and long-distance trunk routes); 2. A long-term, committed plan (beyond 2040, including electrification); 3. Stability, for optimum delivery (stick with the industry structure, but speed-up performance and capacity improvements by engaging customers and the public).

Could 2018 become a year of real political opportunity for rail engineers?

Rebeka Sellick was lead author of the IMechE’s Railway Capacity Report and a member of the ‘Capacity or Performance - either or both?’ conference organising committee.

Thanks to all fellow contributors to IMechE’s work, especially conference presenters and IMechE staff, Francis How (Institution of Railway Signal Engineers’ chief executive), the current IMechE Railway Division chair Richard McClean, and past chairs Richard East and Chris Kinchin-Smith.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

FEATURE

SOMETHING TO SHOUT ABOUT!

VISIT OUR TECHNICAL SEMINARS ON STAND A61

DISCOVER NEW AND EXCITING THINGS AT RAIL MEDIA SEE US ON STAND

LET’S TALK… NEWS

H18

RECRUITMENT

ALL THE LATEST RAIL

EVENTS

NEWS

SERVICES

way People.com

www.rail-media.com

VISIT THE RECRUITMENT WALL POWERED BY RAILWAYPEOPLE.COM STAND F66

Queen’s Award Winning Composite Product Solutions Station Platforms

Structural Stair Treads

Dura Platform Composite Station Platforms for New Builds and Refurbs

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

BEFORE

AFTER

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

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

...designed for the future Industrial

Rail

Marine

Decking

Cladding

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

67

68

FEATURE

HS2 scores sustainable LESLEY BROWN

“W

hile not an obligation, it’s fundamental for us to have a third-party

looking in at our sustainability process

with BREEAM HS2 will require the provision of many new and realigned watercourses, replacement flood storage areas, and wetland habitats.

and practice.” This February, HS2 Ltd pocketed a BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme Certificate for Phase 1, London to the West Midlands, and became the UK’s first infrastructure project to receive this independent stamp of approval.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

PHOTO: HS2 LTD

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) was introduced by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 1990 and is the world’s longest established method of assessing the sustainability of buildings.

A similar scheme for infrastructure is CEEQUAL, which was established by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

To find out more about HS2’s ‘ambitious sustainability strategy’ and the significance of this accreditation, Rail Engineer caught up with Peter Miller, HS2 environment director, and Chris Broadbent, director CEEQUAL and BREEAM Infrastructure at BRE, the organisation behind BREEAM. “Introduced in 2015, the BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme Certificate came about following the development and use of BREEAM for venues for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games,” Chris Broadbent explained.

“After the Games, several people from industry approached us, including consultants working with HS2 at that stage, about the possibility of extending this BREEAM thinking to infrastructure.

So, in 2013, I set up and led the team developing the BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme, which we then launched in 2015.”

BREEAM assesses and certifies the sustainability performance of individual buildings, communities and infrastructure projects at a number of stages in the built environment life cycle - from design and construction through to operation and refurbishment.

Peter Miller continued: “Achieving this certification for Phase 1 gains us credibility from a well-recognised organisation that challenges industry. It reassures the public and stakeholders that we are going about sustainability in the right way.

Underpinning the work we are doing, it provides reassurance that HS2 is working well for the public purse.”

“HS2 has really set out its stall in a good way for sustainability,” added Chris Broadbent. “Following this, there will be an assessment for the design phase, and finally for the build.”

Ratings to push boundaries BREEAM Infrastructure addresses carbon issues and resource management, as well as the wider range of sustainability categories such as resilience, stakeholder engagement, pollution, ecology and heritage. As Chris Broadbent stated: “Our aim is to give a balanced outcome and provide a framework to manage sustainability across all of these aspects.”

Each of these categories addresses the most influential sustainability factors, including low-impact design and carbon emissions reduction, design durability

and resilience; adaption to climate change; ecological value and biodiversity protection.

Projects seeking to obtain the Infrastructure certification gain credits in the respective categories, scoring higher in some perhaps and lower in others, depending on their particular focus. “But adding up all the scores, the scheme gives a balanced result for a project’s sustainability across the board.”

With a five-tier rating system ranging from Pass - Good - Very Good - Excellent - Outstanding, the certificate seeks to push participating projects beyond mandatory requirements to prove they are pushing the boundaries. So, while achieving a Pass suggests ‘just over the basic minimum’, anything higher confirms they are doing far more. If the assessment awarded is Excellent, for instance, this probably means the project has scored well in all the different categories.

“We have only completed the strategic assessment at this point and scored 32 out of the available 41 credits,” said Chris Miller. “This puts us in the right place to achieve the BREEAM excellence we have committed to.”

FEATURE

From words to action - sustainability in the field HS2’s stated ambition is “to build the most sustainable high-speed railway of its kind in the world”. With this bold goal in mind, it has divided the task into five themes: »» Spreading the benefits: economic growth and community regeneration; »» Opportunities for all: skills, employment and education; »» Safe at heart: health, safety and wellbeing; »» Respecting our surroundings: environmental protection and management; »» Standing the test of time: design that is future-proof.

Infrastructure Carbon Review The Infrastructure Carbon Review sets out a series of actions for government, clients and suppliers to reduce carbon from the construction and operation of the UK’s infrastructure assets, in line with the UK’s climate change commitments.

The recommendations have the potential to reduce up to 24 million tonnes of carbon and save the UK £1.46 billion

A HS2 worker installing newt fencing at Park Hall Nature Reserve, near Birmingham.

Engaging with local communities is an important part of the plan, Peter Miller insisted. But what does this mean in practice? Well, there’s the £40 million HS2 Phase 1 Community and Environment Fund, established to support projects along the Phase 1 route through refurbishing community centres, nature conservation, and measures to support jobs and local economies.

“It’s about enabling local communities to be sustainable in their own right,” said Peter Miller. “Groups can bid for a piece of this funding to get something done for their community. Like the recent award for Wendover Woods.”

Woodland On 8 March 2018, HS2 Minister Nusrat Ghani announced a £450,000 grant for the Wendover Woods Recreational Development project near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The award will fund

a year by 2050.

The Review is developed jointly by government and industry though the Infrastructure Cost Review and Green Construction Board. Published on 25 November 2013, it was signed by government ministers Lord Deighton and Michael Fallon and by representatives of the following organisations: »» Highways Agency »» Heathrow Airport Ltd »» EDF (New Nuclear) »» National Grid

»» Anglian Water »» Defence Infrastructure Organisation »» Skanska »» The Clancy Group »» Galliford Try »» Laing O’Rourke »» JN Bentley »» Balfour Beatty »» Carillion »» Bam Nuttall »» Murphy Group »» Arup »» Atkins »» Mott Macdonald »» ICE »» UK Green Building Council

PHOTO: HS2 LTD

Around 100 people at HS2 supported the project’s BREEAM manager who led on the assessment. They included technical specialists whose expertise includes areas such as carbon, heritage, waste, biodiversity, and noise, supported by the wider environmental management team across the three delivery Phases.

In addition, there are other individuals across the organisation dealing with social sustainability, including equality; diversity, inclusion and skills; education and employment.

“As this infrastructure scheme is currently in pilot, there was a lot more engagement with BRE to discuss technical queries and how we should apply it and their process to a project the size of HS2 - with multiple contracts such as enabling works, main works, civils - than you would typically have with a standard BREEAM assessment for buildings,” Peter Miller pointed out.

plans for a new woodland hub with an adventure trail, café and parking for 600 visitors.

“This scheme, which will be delivered

by Forestry Enterprise England, will include flat surfaces so older and mobility impaired people can access and benefit from the venue,” Peter Miller explained.

“Plus, visitors will be able to walk there from the local railway station and electric charging points will also encourage more sustainable transport services to the site.”

To deliver a “bigger and better” ecological impact, HS2 is also linking up its mitigation plans with existing ecological sites wherever possible. In the Cubbington area, Warwickshire, for instance, remnants of ancient woodland will be linked to provide a bigger woodland habitat for wildlife. Extending to the River Leam, where HS2 will be on viaduct, this space will enable wildlife to roam freely through the landscape and pass safely beneath the high-speed track.

“We can’t deny the project will have impacts, but if we go about sustainability in the right way, the outcome for the future will be positive,” Peter Miller added. “For example, given the awful lot of woodland involved in the project, around 650 hectares, our plan will deliver a Green Corridor along the rail route.”

Water Treating water properly also features in HS2’s strategy. At Park Hall Nature Reserve outside Birmingham, the project is changing the nature of the River Tame to realise a more natural course.

“Yes, these works will be disruptive in the first instance,” Peter Miller acknowledged, “but, over time, they will

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

69

70

FEATURE deliver a greater ecological outcome, providing flood relief and improving access for local people. This is a great example of how the new railway can deliver local benefits as well as meeting the country’s wider transport objectives.”

HS2 seeks to design new features that function well and contribute positively to the surrounding landscape through their alignment, shaping, and bankside design.

Positive integration of structures

Counting the gains Public acceptance, stakeholder confidence and balancing cost and life cycle value are among the benefits of a BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme.

Having such a solid strategy in place can also deliver gains further down the line.

While there may be additional capital cost to infrastructure meeting the BREEAM standard, this cost needs to be seen in the context of the overall life cycle value that sustainable development can deliver.

“Yes, of course there’s the economic aspect too,” Peter Miller agreed. “Cost efficiencies can be generated through actions such as using resources more efficiently, selecting appropriate materials,

PHOTO: HS2 LTD

To mitigate the impact of the 3.4kmlong Colne Valley viaduct, one of the biggest structures on the Phase 1 route, HS2 says a lot of work has gone into creating a structure that fits in with the landscape and minimises impact on the surrounding environment (issue 160, February 2018).

“Innovative ideas include additional elements such as transparent noisereduction barriers with vertical lines that are visible to bats and wildfowl to reduce possible impacts, whilst creating a slimmer side profile of the viaduct,” said Jim Barclay, chair of the Colne Valley Regional Park Panel.

BREEAM to inform the requirements and identified some additional credits we expected our contractors to achieve over and above the minimum requirements.

For instance, we have mandated the need for a carbon and energy strategy, when this is an optional credit in BREEAM Infrastructure.

“Our sustainability strategy will broadly stay the same, our carbon objective, for one, accords with Government’s aspirations for near zero emissions by 2050. Our plan is to get on a pathway now that shows how HS2 will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that will require innovation through design and construction and careful thought about the energy use during operation.

“That’s the benefit of BREEAM; it helps frame the sustainable outcome.

But recognising how we do that will be determined through flexible practice, effective design and innovation.”

and avoiding waste. Take the provision of lights as an example. In the past we had heat inefficient light bulbs. Today we have LED. Today we have passive heating systems. We have built these kinds of sustainable processes and outcomes into our thinking.”

Chris Broadbent pointed out how many BREEAM users also see the scheme as a useful management tool that prompts questions about their sustainability approach and even opens up avenues to do things in other ways. To reduce the carbon impact, for example, they might use a different concrete mix, dispense with concrete altogether, or adopt a completely different approach to the build. Rail Engineer asked Peter Miller whether this was the case for HS2?

“At the same time as undertaking our BREEAM strategic assessment, we were writing our requirements for our Phase 1 contractors,” he replied. “We used

Driving forces and the bigger picture

PHOTO: BRE GROUP

Left to right: Chris Broadbent, director CEEQUAL and BREEAM Infrastructure at BRE; Nigel Campbell, HS2 senior media relations manager; Swati Singh, BREEAM manager, HS2; Peter Miller, HS2 environment director.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

There is a focus on carbon in the infrastructure sector, particularly following the ‘Infrastructure Carbon Review’ (ICR) report produced by HM Treasury in 2013.

Confirming the link between reducing carbon and reducing cost, it focuses on the value of lower carbon solutions to make carbon reduction part of the DNA of infrastructure in the UK. Chris Broadbent believes its recommendations have since helped drive up industry awareness of the importance of taking sustainability matters fully on board. “One of them resulted in the development of PAS 2080 as a standard to help projects and organisations establish a common understanding,

FEATURE

Create new features Opportunity to create a high quality, eye catching and well integrated piece of infrastructure

Promote habitat creation Compensation pond integrated within landscape designed to be natural in appearance. This provides an opportunity for marginal planting and habitat creation in an area where it might not otherwise be possible. It also provides visual interest for both local residents and HS2 passengers

Promote sustainable watersystems Opportunity for rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling on proposed buildings

Promote renewable energy Opportunity for photo-voltaic cells on HS2 associated buildings along with green roofs for habitat

Promote wider walking and cycling networks Opportunity to create convenient cycle and pedestrian networks for increased connectivity and permeability

Art and culture Opportunity for high quality art installations and landforms that enhance views from the train, create local points of interests and are educational

Habitat creation Opportunity for habitat creation along canal edge and within associated open spaces

Natural play

approach, and language for whole life carbon management in infrastructure.

“The BREEAM scheme is part of a credible package we are creating around our commitments to sustainability, which also includes ISO 14001:2015 environmental management systems certification for Phase 1,” Peter Miller stated. “With such a huge build, we have many contractors designing and this certification, very much an industry standard, will serve to reinforce our sustainability message to them when civil engineering work kicks off in 2019. It also helps to point to processes and practices in the supply chain.”

Yes, HS2’s commitment to all matters sustainable appears to delve deep and wide. Motivating the supply chain is very much part of the package. Here one goal is to ensure compliance with the Euro 6 engine emission standard for the fleets of construction vehicles in order to generate less air pollution (NOX particles and CO2).

“It’s a game-changing moment because we have big buying power that will influence the construction industry, so this kind of benefit will change the way we do things that will benefit others in the years to come,” Peter Miller told Rail Engineer.

“The kit and equipment from plants will

Engender community benefits

Opportunity for natural play or community facility to be incorporated within proposed open spaces

Embed recreation into publicly accessible spaces and link into strategies for the wider area such as existing public rights of way

most likely be used on other projects after HS2. We must be seen to be doing the right thing and lead by example.”

Joining forces BREEAM isn’t the only independent ratings body on the block. The CEEQUAL scheme has also been influential over the years in shaping the sustainability agenda and outcomes for many infrastructure projects. Its CEEQUAL methodology has been applied to - and positively influenced - some of the UK’s most successful infrastructure projects including Crossrail and the London 2012 Olympics.

In response to the introduction of BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot), industry expressed its interest in having a single scheme, rather than two separate bodies running two in parallel. “This led to the idea of merging the CEEQAL and BREEAM infrastructure schemes, and our acquisition of CEEQAL in November 2015,” Chris Broadbent explained.

Following this move, CEEQUAL (2018) is set to launch (later this year) as the sole successor. BRE chief executive Peter Bonfield commented: “Our long-term aspiration with a single scheme is to bring together the significant experience and expertise behind the two rating systems

PHOTO: HS2 LTD

Promote green infrastructure The creation of green infrastructure networks through the greening of redundant land, and the introduction of green and brown roofs and positive improvement of urban microclimate

to deliver enhanced environmental and social benefits for civil engineering works and better economic outcomes that benefit society, and broaden up-take in the UK and international markets.”

Walking the talk As far as HS2 is concerned, gaining accreditation for its sustainability strategy is setting the project up for even more scrutiny (if possible) over the coming years. Henceforth, all eyes will be riveted on the team to see if they deliver the promised goods. It’s just as well they anticipated this development.

“HS2 was thinking about sustainability from the outset, back in 2013, and this is important,” said Chris Broadbent.

“The earlier you engage, the better the outcome. If you try to add on sustainability when the designs have been finalised, it’s usually too late.”

“We can’t pay lip service to sustainability but have to strike the right balance between the environmental and social costs and benefits,” Peter Miller summed up. “Since HS2 is publicly underwritten, it’s vital we spend the money in the right way. You don’t get an Act of Parliament approved these days without adopting this kind of sustainable approach.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

71

72

FEATURE

Ethical Labour Supply

M

odern slavery might seem to

An industry first

be something that wouldn’t

VGC is the first labour supply company in the UK to achieve the new Ethical Labour Sourcing Standard (BES 6002:2017) - the first company in the rail sector, and one of just three companies to date, to do so.

Audit report approvals body BRE Global said: “As one of the largest labour and staff suppliers to the UK’s construction and rail companies, and as a company that undertakes rail and construction contracts, VGC clearly has robust governance procedures.

“There is a strong underlying culture of organisational responsibility and a genuine concern for the welfare of others at a senior management level.“ Ethical labour sourcing is a fundamental part of the VGC culture. Its employees and clients, as well as the wider communities in which they work, benefit from its achievement of sustainability objectives. As part of the company’s ethos of driving fairness and ethics in the construction and rail industry, VGC participated in an industry stakeholder group that helped to develop the new standard.

trouble the UK rail industry.

After all, it is a relatively high

paid sector with a lot of engineers and technical staff. So how would slavery even enter into it?

However, it could do, particularly at the bottom end of the skills ladder.

Writing in RailStaff recently, Katie Kinloch, a professional support lawyer with Addleshaw Goddard, said: “Wherever there is a demand for unskilled workers, and poor legal oversight, there is a risk of exploitation. In the UK, the biggest risk occurs in relation to services, particularly in the market for unskilled agency labour (for example, in farming, warehousing and office services like cleaning and facilities management).

“Law makers around the world are coming to realise that this is a problem that must be tackled, and the UK is leading the way. As a result, this country became one of the first in the world to require businesses to publish information on what they are doing to tackle the risks of modern slavery and human trafficking taking place in their supply chains.”

So, however unlikely companies may think that it would be to affect them, large businesses (those with a turnover of £36 million and more, including turnover of subsidiaries) that do business in the UK must publish an annual statement on their websites setting out the steps they are taking to ensure that modern slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their business or supply chains.

As a result, the labour supply organisations which those large businesses deal with must also be assured that they comply with the law.

Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

A significant step Dr Shamir Ghumra, BRE’s director of sustainable products, said: “The verification by VGC Group to the ELS marks another significant step forward for the industry on the subject of ethical labour sourcing. The commitment shown by senior VGC staff in achieving verification means that we have a major supplier of labour to the industry that will continue to look for improvements year on year.”

Ciara Pryce, group services director, confirmed: “VGC’s ethical approach to

how we treat our people and deliver our activities is part of the fabric of the organisation. We will continue to build on this foundation and raise the bar in the support, development and protection of our people, using the ELS to benchmark, monitor and improve.”

John Hannan, HSQE director, added: “We believe that having ELS distinguishes us from our competitors in having auditable processes to prevent forced labour and human trafficking.”

Chris Ryan, operations director, said: “This independent verification is an important measure of how we deliver our policy of fairness and transparency. It also clearly shows our staff and our clients how we have embedded the issues of ethical labour supply and modern slavery throughout VGC.”

The Ethical Labour Sourcing Standard The 2016 Global Slavery Index estimates that 45.8 million people are in some form of slavery in 167 countries, including around 11,700 in the UK. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 sets a benchmark for ethical business practice in the sourcing of labour. The Ethical Labour Standard was created to recognise those who wish to seek third-party assurance of their practices. ELS verification provides a framework for organisations to verify their systems and processes in relation to the Modern Slavery Act. BRE Environmental and Sustainability Standard 6002 specifies the requirements for organisational management to demonstrate an on-going commitment to the principles of ethical labour sourcing in relation to the provision of products and services and provides a framework against which all organisations may be assessed.

ON TRACK IN THE U.K.

Respected and read in the industry since 1997 With so many professionals in the UK rail industry and supply chain receiving RailStaff magazine, how can you afford to miss the chance to advertise?

Call 01530 816 440 to find out how RailStaff can help you.

Get your RailStaff magazine today – subscribe for FREE at railsubs.com or call 01530 816 444

74

CAREERS

Bridgeway Consulting Ltd have an exciting opportunity for a

Professional Head of Rail Infrastructure – Rail Innovation Development Centre (Melton) Role

• Based at Nottingham and Asfordby • Provide professional asset management

leadership for Rail Infrastructure maintenance delivery and support

• Work with stakeholders/contractors to optimise engineering activities

• Advise on how assets can be managed

efficiently using risk-based maintenance and minimising whole life cost

• Provide assurance of competence of contractors

Responsibilities

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

• Control risks arising from maintenance of

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

Qualifications and Experience

• Be able to demonstrate management of multiple disciplines and subcontractors

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

• Degree/HND qualified or appropriate industry experience/competence

• Monitor asset performance to inform

• Sentinel PTS qualified

• Provide reports and relevant KPIs to the Client

Candidates must:

maintenance of arising work on asset conditions

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

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

• Hold a valid UK Driving Licence

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

Boost your career prospects

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

Update your CV and profile today

THE JOB LARG SIT EST E IN DED THE ICAT WO ED R RLD AIL way People.com Rail Engineer | Issue 163 | May 2018

EAST WEST RAILWAY COMPANY The East West Railway Company is a start-up, recently launched by the Transport Secretary, to provide a new focus and drive for one of the most high profile infrastructure projects in the UK, as well as to develop an innovative new model for delivering railways.

East West Railway Company – Are you Interested in joining creating a new railway between this new ‘disruptor’ in the Oxford and Cambridge rail industry?

As part of bold plans for the ‘UK’s Silicon Valley’, East West Rail is one of the most high profile infrastructure projects in the UK today. The new railway will not only reduce existing commuting and travel times, but crucially, serve as a catalyst for economic development in the area, including the creation of more high skilled jobs and new homes.

If so, we are actively looking for people to join us!

We have roles available in a number of areas including Strategy, Operations, Engineering, Project Management, Programme Controls, Scheme Design and HSE.

Please visit RailwayPeople.com to view the current ‘East West Railway’ live vacancies or email recruitment@eastwestrailwaycompany.co.uk for further information.

FOR THE INDUSTRY, BY THE INDUSTRY @PlantworxPR

PLANTWORX.CO.UK

@RailMedia

@RailWorx

RAILWORX.CO.UK

The UK’s Showcase for Construction Equipment, Tools, Plant & Services and (NEW for 2019) Rail

TEL 020 8253 4517

INFO@PLANTWORX.CO.UK

TEL 01530 816 444

RAILWORX@RAIL-MEDIA.COM

EAST OF ENGLAND ARENA AND EVENTS CENTRE

PETERBOROUGH