Rail Engineer - Issue 156 - October 2017 by Rail Media

Engineer

by rail engineers for rail engineers

OCTOBER 2017 - ISSUE 156

London Bridge Blockade Summer 2017 update

MAJOR CLOSURE AT WATERLOO A large section of London’s busiest station closed for 24 days in August for major remodelling to platforms, track layout and signalling in preparation for longer trains.

CONCRETE/ EARTHWORKS/ DRAINAGE

ALL DOWN TO GOOD PLANNING

LOW PROBABILITY - HIGH IMPACT!

Network Rail’s Francis Paonessa comments on bank holiday working, major projects, safety and the Hansford Review.

How the busiest line in Europe collapsed into the tunnel being dug underneath it to improve services.

www.railengineer.uk

INNOVATION

Tomorrow’s railway today Our people create better journeys by increasing network capacity, improving reliability and making our railways more efficient and sustainable. We are uniquely placed to offer practical solutions to industry challenges, combining a deep understanding of our customer’s objectives with a broad range of expertise. Our services are underpinned by dedicated teams, delivering innovative engineering, advanced digital technology and industry‑leading safety.

For more information, contact us: 01737 854400 rail@balfourbeatty.com www.balfourbeatty.com/rail

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

22 26 30 34 40

Feature

06 10 16 20 44 48 52 58 64

Concrete/ Earthworks/ Drainage Three projects in concrete This month’s Concrete Focus starts with a look at enhancing capacity in Wessex.

Chipping Sodbury – a saturated environment Collin Carr reports on work to dry out a soggy tunnel.

Best laid plans Graeme Bickerdike explains why the bridge at Moses Gate sprung a leak.

Low probability – high impact Keith Fender investigates why Europe’s busiest railway collapsed at Rastatt.

A second bridge at Kenilworth Graham Construction was tasked with building a new bridge at a new station.

30 68 86 89

And the next challenge is… Malcolm Dobell attended Richard McClean’s inaugural address to the IMechE.

Leaf fall on the Underground Chris Parker explains why and how an underground railway controls vegetation.

Schooling local signalling skills MPI and Siemens are tackling the skills gap at a new school in Glasgow.

News Alstom, Heathrow, Jurassic, Grinders.

London Bridge blockade Clive Kessell describes the work carried out over the August Bank Holiday.

Major closure at Waterloo: August 2017 Mark Phillips went to see what happened at Waterloo over 24 days in August.

Waterloo woes While the project was a success overall, a couple of things didn’t go to plan.

A dream becomes reality Peter Stanton watched the Great Central Railway ‘bridge the gap’ at Loughborough.

Lighter and Brighter Stuart Marsh goes up onto the new roof at Carlisle Citadel station.

Unlucky 13 Lydgate viaduct in the Pennines has 13 arches – and one was giving trouble…

It’s all down to good planning Dr Francis Paonessa, Network Rail’s Infrastructure Projects head, speaks frankly.

Digital Railway Realism – it’s not just about technology How Thales is approaching the digital railway, in the UK and elsewhere.

Innovation

72 74 78 82 84

Detecting wheel flats and more Vortok’s new Train Fault Detector also reveals hot wheels and bearings.

East West Rail and TroPath Paul Darlington investigates a polymer cable trough that’s also a safe walkway.

Innovation & light bulbs Vislink and Panasonic have developed data downlinks for high-speed vehicles.

Measuring efficiently How Korec uses Trimble Gedo equipment to survey in 3D.

Practical innovation Generac is improving lighting and combatting ballast dust.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Discover Rail Media T EN M IT U CR RE

@rail_media

le s op b Pe Jo ay ail ts n ilw l R Ra ba ude o Gl il St Ra

@about.rail.media

NEWS RailStaff Rail Engineer Global Rail News

rail-media RailmediaUK

EVENTS RailStaff Awards Rail Exec Club Rail Digital Summit Rail Safety Summit Rail Asset Management Summit Rail Sustainability Summit

ive at re il C Ra

SERVICES

RailSport

Â®

Tel: 01530 816 444 www.rail-media.com

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

EDITORIAL

Learning lessons Each year, Network Rail spends around £4 billion on enhancements and £3 billion on renewals. This is 22 per cent of Britain’s infrastructure investment expenditure, the equivalent of building an Olympic stadium each month. Undertaking work on this scale, whilst keeping an overcrowded railway running, will inevitably cause disruption with the potential for high-profile possession overruns. Dr Francis Paonessa knows this all too well. Just after becoming Network Rail’s Infrastructure Projects managing director, he had to deal with the repercussions of the 2014 Christmas engineering work overruns at Kings Cross and Paddington. The following year, he had to support Network Rail’s chief executive, Mark Carne in his unenviable task of explaining to the public accounts committee why the delayed Great Western electrification project was costing three times its 2013 estimate of £874 million. Nigel Wordsworth interviewed Francis for our key feature, in which he is open about the mistakes that have been made. He explains how lessons from problematic high-profile projects, such as Great Western electrification, have been learned and what has been done to prevent bank holiday engineering work overruns. With only one significant possession overrun since 2014, this new approach seems to be working. There is also evidence that Network Rail’s new project cost control approach is working. This no longer commits to final investment decisions until project development has produced a realistic cost estimate. However, the legacy of the GW electrification’s £2 billion overspend is cancellation of future electrification schemes and a marked drop-off in projected workload at the end of Control Period 5. Furthermore, the CP6 high-level output specification is to focus on renewals with a “pipeline” approach for enhancements, each of which will require a separate funding package. As the railway supply chain faces tough times ahead, one answer is for it to seek partnerships to finance and deliver enhancements in accordance with the recommendations of Professor Hansford’s review. There is no doubt that Network Rail would welcome this approach. The August bank holiday saw large parts of Waterloo and London Bridge stations shut during blockade work. Mark Phillips reports on the major work done to reconfigure the approach to Waterloo and extend Platforms 1 to 4 for 10-car trains. In another feature, he describes how this platform extension was one of three Waterloo capacity projects that require 2,100 tonnes of concrete. The others were the former international approach viaduct and work at Vauxhall station in 2018. Clive Kessell’s report on the latest London Bridge blockade explains how the layout of the station and tracks beyond it have been progressively transformed to create extra capacity with dedicated Thameslink platforms. This year’s Christmas blockade will complete this transformation.

We also report on three projects that illustrate the ingenuity and expertise needed to restore aging railway infrastructure and improve its resilience. Stuart Marsh describes how Carlisle is the latest station to have a lightweight ETFE roof glazing system, which replaces 114 tonnes of glass. Colin Carr explains why Chipping Sodbury tunnel is subject to frequent flooding and describes the major work underway to alleviate this. In a geologically challenging Pennine valley, Lydgate viaduct has been ever-so-slowly on the move since the 1920s. Graeme Bickerdike tells the fascinating tale of this viaduct and its remediation work. Off, but over, the main line network, the heritage Great Central Railway is reinstating a demolished bridge across the Midland main line. Peter Stanton explains why this is so important for the railway and how it is realising this long-awaited goal. Another off-the-mainline feature is Chris Parker’s description of the Piccadilly line’s approach to the leaf fall season, which highlights its integrated management of the resultant adhesion problem. The new chair of the IMechE’s Railway Division is Richard McClean, managing director of Grand Central. Malcolm Dobell describes his address on the relevance of rail in which Richard highlights the need to make railway engineering an attractive career and get across the message that “the ability to work with detailed processes, awesome plant and great people means you can never be bored, while putting your customer, the passenger, on the production line means that you can never let your attention wander.” Wandering attention can certainly result in things going wrong. The precise cause of the collapse of a new rail tunnel bore at Rastatt under Europe’s busiest double track main line has yet to be determined. However, as Keith Fender describes, whatever the resultant engineering recommendations, there are also significant lessons to be learnt regarding the management of the huge disruption from this failure. The failure of a retaining wall and water main at Moses Gate during the recent Bolton blockade closed the line for a further seven days. However, as we describe, the way design, procurement and logistical challenges were rapidly overcome prevented the line from being closed for much longer. The 24-day partial blockade at Waterloo was an almost perfect project. Unfortunately, as we report, disruption from extended signalling testing made this the most significant possession overrun since Christmas 2014. Worryingly, during the blockade, a passenger train derailed due to misaligned points whose control system had been temporarily modified. Lessons from this incident need to be learnt as a matter of urgency.

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

THE TEAM

NEWS

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

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

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Jurassic back in service A 114-year-old locomotive has returned to passenger service after the Heritage Lottery Fund awarded £43,000 to the Lincolnshire Coast Light Railway (LCLR) for her restoration.

Jolene Price jolene@rail-media.com

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Jurassic was built in 1903 by Peckett and Sons in Bristol for the quarries and cement works of Kaye and Company in Southam, Warwickshire. The LCLR bought her in 1961 to operate its services linking the bus terminus at Humberston, near Cleethorpes, with the local beach and holiday camp. When that location closed in 1985, she was moved into store and then to the LCLR’s new location in the Skegness Water Leisure Park. The two-foot gauge (610mm) line reopened to passengers in 2009, and work to restore the classic loco commenced in 2016 after the lottery award. The first task was to dismantle the locomotive, so that the boiler and firebox could be sent to the North Norfolk Railway. Once these were returned to Lincolnshire, they were reunited with Jurassic’s frames. Her long chimney was

put back in place; the injectors have been repaired and refitted, as has the connecting pipework for steam and water. The gauge glasses, regulator, reversing lever and associated fittings have all been refitted and tested. The large cab (which can accommodate four adults, including the driver and fireman) has been sand blasted to remove 114 years of accumulated soot, grease and grime and the saddletank has been repaired. The loco’s insulation, boiler cladding, a new whistle, brass dome cover and other fittings that replace originals stolen several years ago, have all been fitted as well. Now, painted in Middle Brunswick Green and lined out in black and gold, she’s back in service, hauling the railway’s varied rolling stock including its collection of carriages and wagons from the trench railways of the First World War.

NEWS

coming soon... NEXT MONTH... ROLLING STOCK / DEPOTS

Further connectivity for Heathrow Heathrow Southern Rail is the project to link Heathrow Airport to the South. Plans are for a new eight-mile rail link, running alongside the M25, which will connect the west end of the Terminal 5 station with the Windsor-Staines line. This will enable rail connections with London Waterloo via Clapham Junction. In addition, plans are to continue the new line to Chertsey, from whence trains will be able to go on to Woking, Guildford and Basingstoke. The development of the scheme has been bolstered by an announcement that engineering consultant AECOM has ‘bought into’ the scheme, supplying funding for the next

stage which will bring further stakeholder engagement. AECOM chief executive David Barwell announced: “As a longterm partner to government, AECOM is delighted to bring its development, engineering and delivery capability to resolve current and future infrastructure needs and to bring private sector funding to accelerate the delivery of critical public infrastructure” The Heathrow Southern Rail scheme complements Network Rail’s plans for a new chord linking Heathrow to the westbound Great Western main line towards Reading and Bristol.

New designs, Components, Interiors, Refurbishment, Maintenance, Lighting, Fuel, Equipment, Vehicle Maintenance, Condition Monitoring, Lifting, Train Washing, Inspection

SUSTAINABILITY / ENVIRONMENT Sustainable Programmes, Effciency, Planning, Surveys, Wildlife, Vegitation, Waste Disposal, Carbon Emissions, Sustainability, Green Initiatives, Seasonal Issues, Recycling

DECEMBER 2017 ELECTRIFICATION / POWER Transformers, Generators, OLE, Distribution Networks, Monitoring, Earthing, Lightning Protection, Control Equipment and Systems

LIGHT RAIL / METRO Vehicles, Rail, Electrication, Signalling, Tram, Tram-Train, Underground, Operating Systems, Platform Screen Doors, Automation

JANUARY 2018 STATIONS Rail Engineer reports on Stations, the passenger experience through a station, and key developments below: Accessibility, Architecture, BIM, Barriers, Buildings, CCTV, Car Parks, Catering, Cleaning, Escalators, Landlord Permissions, Lifts, Lighting, Maintenance, Passenger Information Systems, Planning Issues, Platform Screen Doors, Platforms, Records, Refurbishment, Reporting, Retail, Security, Software, Smart Ticketing, Wheel / Rail Interface Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

NEWS

First train from Widnes

Alstom's new Widnes facility is now well-and-truly open for business as the first repainted Pendolino train was handed back to Virgin Trains recently.

CAREER &

EDUCATION

IS YOUR COMPANY LOOKING FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS FROM THE RAIL TRANSPORT SECTOR? Take advantage of the Career Concept at InnoTrans 2018. For more information: www.innotrans.com/career

Contact Messe Berlin GmbH · Lisa Simon Messedamm 22 · 14055 Berlin Germany T +49 30 3038 2124 F +49 30 3038 2190 l.simon@messe-berlin.de

Find us on Facebook: InnoTrans Career

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The new livery is named ‘flowing silk’, and it builds on the Virgin brand, adding curves, shapes and dynamism, with the flow across the train taking its main inspiration from the natural world… the wind. With over 13,000 square metres of space, Widnes is said to be the largest rolling stock modernisation facility in the UK, making it ideal for work on intercity trains. Its first task is a €28 million contract to re-paint the 56-strong fleet of Class 390 ‘tilting’ Pendolino trains, which are used by Virgin on the West Coast main line. The contract features include innovative Virtual Reality painting simulators, used to train the team and to validate the work. The repainting team is 80-strong, with the majority coming from the local area. It also includes five new apprentices who will work on the project, demonstrating Alstom’s commitment to developing skills locally. Having successfully

completed their level 2 apprenticeships in Riverside college, they will complete their level 3 qualification at Widnes while delivering this important project. Alstom’s UK and Ireland managing director Nick Crossfield said: “It is a proud day for us, seeing the first of the iconic Pendolino fleet successfully repainted and out on the network again. This is the first work we have completed at our important new Widnes modernisation facility. “We look forward to working with Virgin Trains to complete the painting of the rest of their hard working fleet.”

NEWS

Rail grinders get smaller Engineers used to seeing rail grinding trains on the main line network, and rail millers for that matter, expect to see one or two large yellow machines coupled together, pulled by a freight locomotive between jobs.

However, it doesn’t have to be that way. Tisséo, the operator of the Toulouse tram network in France, recently awarded a threeyear framework contract to Vossloh to carry out preventative maintenance on its tracks. Vossloh brought along an HSG-City highspeed grinder to remove surface defects and restore rail profile. Its small size, the

unit is only 5.72 metres long, means it can be pulled by a Unimog, and it operates at speeds of up to 60km/h. So even though it only removes 0.01mm for each pass, so taking 10 passes to remove 0.1mm, which is thought of as being the best amount to take to keep rails in good condition, it can be done quickly and without interrupting

services. Surface finish is < 10µm and the unit has a range of around 20km. Sparks and dust are contained under the machine’s cover and are sucked up by a vacuum recovery system. Since the prototype was launched in 2014, the unit has been used in Germany, China, Denmark and now France.

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

We Are A Rail Specialist Insurance Broker (RISQS Link up approved)

RAIL PACKAGES AND LABOUR SUPPLY SPECIALIST RAIL CONTRACTOR £3M TURNOVER

WE INSURE • RRV and Plant Companies • S&T, S&C, SMTH, OLE and Civils contractors • Rolling Sock 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

• The existing Employers/Public Liability insurance had been mis-sold by the current broker and the client was been charged incorrectly. • A twelve page summary of the client contracts was complied, detailing liability and risk management information. • Annual premiums were reduced by almost 60% and contractual liability was reduced resulting in £40,000+ annual premium saving.

£40,000 SAVING

ON INSURANCE PREMIUM

GAPS IN

COVER CLOSED

12-PAGE

RISK REPORT TO

INSURERS

£3M

TURNOVER

58%

SAVING

HAPPY TO RECOMMEND

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage. Jobson James Insurance Brokers Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

London Bridge Blockade Summer 2017 update

CLIVE KESSELL

ong blockades of major stations at public and bank holiday times have become part of rail engineering custom and always attract media attention, most of it critical. Is this adverse press comment justified?

Rail Engineer went to see what was happening at London Bridge during the recent blockade period, to see at first hand what was actually involved and the steps taken to minimise disruption to the travelling public.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The blockade commenced on Saturday 26 August and lasted until Sunday 3 September. During the first weekend, all lines were closed except one (which was signalled for reversible working) to allow limited access to some platforms on the low level (Central) side of the station. No trains could access the high level (South Eastern) platforms, thus necessitating the closure of Charing Cross and Cannon Street stations. Fortunately for intending passengers, there were alternative train services from most places in Kent and Sussex into Victoria or Blackfriars. From Bank Holiday Monday, all low level lines and platforms were re-opened as were the lines through the highlevel section of the station to Cannon Street, but trains did not call at the associated platforms as work on these and the street level concourse extension will not be finished until Christmas. On Saturday 2 September, test trains were operating through the station and onwards to Charing Cross with a limited timetable operating on Sunday and a full service at the start of the working week on Monday 4 September.

FEATURE

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE London Bridge past and present

US DF

4 5 TEMP SLEW

TEMP SLEW

6 7 8 9 10 11

SUSSEX LINES DS

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

DF TEMP SLEW

NEW CROSS GATE

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

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

TO GREENWICH KENT AUGUST KENT BLOCKADE TRACK LAYOUT AFTER 2017 NEW CROSS NEW CROSS

TO GREENWICH

2 3 1

US TO GREENWICH

4 5

4 5 2 3

US KENT LINES DS DF US UF

6 7

6 7 4 5

3 1 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 5 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 9

11 12 13 14

LONDON BRIDGE 15 LOW LEVEL

10 8 9

4 6 7 8 9 10 11

11 12 10 13 14 11 12 15 13 14

DF SR

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

NEW CROSS

DF UF

SUSSEX LINES DS

DF SUSSEX LINES UF DS US DF

UF US

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

NEW CROSSUF GATE

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

SR SOUTHWARK SOUTHEASTERN REVERSIBLE

SOUTHEASTERN SOUTHERN

SOUTHERN THAMESLINK

NEW CROSS GATE NEW CROSS GATE

SOUTH BERMONDSEY

15 UF UP FAST DF UP US DOWN FAST UF US SLOW SR SOUTHWARK SLOW UP UP FAST REVERSIBLE

EY DS ER ON ND RM E-U BE DIV

8 9 6 7

NEW CROSS GATE

high level with 1, 2, and2017 3 broadly leading much slower line via Tulse HillLAYOUT and missing TRACK TRACK AFTER LAYOUT AUGUST AFTER 2017 AUGUST BLOCKADE BLOCKADE to Cannon Street, 4 and 5 dedicated to out the important interchange at London TO GREENWICH Thameslink TO GREENWICH andNEW 6,LAYOUT 7,CROSS 8 and 9 serving the Bridge. KENT KENTAT TRACK JULYCROSS 2017 NEW LINES LINES route to Charing Cross. At the terminal Secondly, the new grade-separated 1 DS DS 2 US US reduced platforms, these have been to six junction at New Cross Gate on to TO GREENWICH KENT NEW CROSS LINES 3 (numbers 10 to 15), the work here being the revamped East London line to DS 1 4 DF DF essentiallyUFcomplete. US Whitechapel52 and the Docklands area, and UF There are 11 parallel access lines to the the through 63services over this route now DF 4 7 south of the station, which in future will provided by5London Overground, has TEMP UF 8 SLEW1 to 3 for Cannon broadly allocate lines caused need for inner suburban SUSSEX SUSSEX 6 TEMP a reduced 9 LINES LINES SLEW 7 Street trains, Thameslink, 6 trains to access the low-level terminal DS 4 and 5 for DS 10 8 to 8 for Charing Cross trains and 9 to 11 platforms. 11 DF DF SUSSEX 9 LINES UF and out of UF for trains into the terminal This resulted DS 10 in surplus capacity on US US platforms. Some lines areDFsignalled for the low level11and a serious shortage of NEW CROSSUF NEW CROSS reversible working,GATE thus catering for peak capacity and throughput on the high level. GATE SOUTH SOUTH US BERMONDSEY flows in opposite directions. Crossovers do If Thameslink was ever to achieveBERMONDSEY the NEW CROSS permit trains to access different platforms status of a cross city RER type line, then GATE SOUTH BERMONDSEY from those listed above to cater for something would have to be done. signalling failures, maintenance work or The ultimate result is to equip London FINAL TRACKany FINAL LAYOUT TRACK JANUARY LAYOUT 2018 JANUARY 2018 other eventuality. Bridge with nine through platforms on the LINES DS

8 9

TO CANNON ST

LINES DS

NEW CROSS

LONDON BRIDGE HIGH LEVEL 2

LONDON BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE LOW LEVEL LOW LEVEL

DS DF DOWN DOWNSLOW FAST

LINES DS

2 3

TO CHARING CROSS

KENT NEW CROSS

EY DS ER ON ND RM E-U BE DIV

TO BLACKFRIARS

TO GREENWICH KENT LINES DS

LONDON BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE HIGH LEVEL

TO BLACKFRIARS HIGH LEVEL TO CANNON ST 1

ARING CROSS TO CHARING CROSS

WN SLOW

TO GREENWICH

EY DS ER ON ND RM E-U BE DIV

CKFRIARS

TRACK LAYOUT TRACK AT JULY LAYOUT 2017AT JULY 2017

EY DS ER ON ND RM E-U BE DIV

Issue 154 (August 2017) contained a detailed article on the London Bridge project, but it is worthwhile reiterating the reasons behind this massive project and the benefits that will come about. TO CANNON ST TO CANNON ST Previously, London Bridge had nine LONDON BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE CKFRIARS terminal TO BLACKFRIARS platforms on the low-level side, HIGH LEVEL HIGH LEVEL 1 1 broadly serving areas of the old London, 1 Brighton & South Coast Railway. These 2 2 3 2 3 3 had five access lines out towards New 4 Cross Gate and Denmark 4 5 Hill. 4 5 5 The high-level side had six platforms plus 6 TEMP 6 7 6 7 SLEW one through line, all of which extended 7 ARING CROSS TO CHARING CROSS 8 onwards through the notorious Borough 8 9 8 9 9 Market Junction to either Charing Cross or 10 10 10 Cannon Street termini, historically being 11 part of the South Eastern and Chatham 11 12 11 12 Railway.LONDON BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE LOW LEVEL LOW LEVEL 13 14 between the 13 14 Some cross-connections two sides south of the station allowed 15 15 off-peak Caterham and Tattenham Corner trains from Charing Cross to route towards New Cross Gate and East Croydon. This layout and TO arrangement was never ideal TO CANNON ST CANNON ST but the operators became slick at making LONDON BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE CKFRIARS TO BLACKFRIARS HIGH HIGH LEVEL the best ofTO a CANNON bad job asLEVEL the cost and ST 1 scale of improving the throughput was 1 1 LONDON BRIDGE TO BLACKFRIARS HIGH LEVEL 2 considered prohibitive.2 3 2 3 3 Two major changes to train services 1 4 4 5 forced the situation to 4be5 resolved. Firstly, 5 2 3 the advent of the Thameslink south6 6 7 6 7 7 4 5 to-north cross London service, initially ARING CROSS TO CHARING CROSS 8 achieved at minimum cost 8 9 by reopening 8 9 9 6 7 the Snow Hill link to Farringdon, routed 10 TO CHARING CROSS 10 10 additional trains across the connection 11 8 9 from low-level to high-level 11 12 lines just11 12 10 BRIDGE LONDON BRIDGE outsideLONDON London Bridge station, thus LOW LEVEL LOW LEVEL 13 14 13 14 creating more flat junction conflict and 11 12 LONDON BRIDGEused further pressure on the platforms 15 LOW LEVEL 15 by the Charing Cross services. It was 13 14 deemed impossible to path Thameslink 15 trains through London Bridge in the peak hours, themSTto be routed on to the TO CANNON ST forcing TO CANNON

THAMESLINK ANCILLARY LINES

WORKSITE ANCILLARY LINES

WORKSITE

FINAL TRACK LAYOUT JANUARY 2018

FEATURE

Previous blockades and stagework

The Summer 2017 blockade

The project has been ongoing since 2013 and, regrettably, the Thameslink trains have had to use the Tulse Hill route to reduce the number of trains using London Bridge station. Since then, the low-level station has been totally rebuilt, the highlevel platforms have been demolished and rebuilt in altered locations, an extra two tracks have been added through Borough Market Junction round to Charing Cross and a grade-separated junction has been constructed at Bermondsey to allow Thameslink trains unfettered access to Platforms 4 and 5. Most of the civil construction work is now complete, except for the final building extension in the street level concourse. The first blockade in December 2014 involving the lines into the low level platforms was a watershed, as the planning process failed on a number of counts and significant disruption was caused for a short period of time, giving rise to very irate passengers and questions asked in Parliament. Quickly sorted, it was recognised that future blockades had to be planned down to the minutest detail and subsequent work has gone without any adverse consequences. Particularly large blockades took place over the August and Christmas 2016 periods that permitted three new platforms to be commissioned for the lines to Charing Cross and the bringing into use of the Down Sussex slow line through the Bermondsey dive under. A full description of these works was given in issue 142 (August 2016) and 148 (February 2017). Not all work needs a full blockade, with many items of lesser activity being carried out during short possessions at weekends.

As has been said, the work has taken place over a nine-day period. It has to be recognised that the entire railway between New Cross, on the SE routes, plus New Cross Gate on the Sussex routes, through London Bridge station and Borough Market to Metropolitan Junction and up to Blackfriars, has been entirely rebuilt. It is, in effect, a brand new railway. This has meant slewing lines to different positions whilst other lines are built or re-laid with the necessary provision of temporary crossovers and associated signalling. The first Saturday and Sunday saw new crossovers brought into use that enabled greater connectivity between the low and high-level lines such that, should any problem arise with access lines 9 to 11, the trains can be routed via line 8 into and out of the low level platforms. On Bank Holiday Monday, lines 1 and 2 were reopened to allow SE trains to operate into and out of Cannon Street, this being an acceptable alternative to Charing Cross for the remainder of the week.

The Up and Down Kent Fast lines, temporarily located where the Thameslink lines 4 and 5 will go, have been put in to their final position on lines 7 and 8, leading in to Platforms 6 to 9 which, with the opening of Platform 6, gives four platforms for Charing Cross services, two Up, two Down. Line 6 has been partially brought into use to give more flexibility on the country end approaches to the high-level station. Lines 7 and 8 are now diverted through the Bermondsey dive under, thus freeing the way for the Thameslink lines to be constructed into platforms 4 and 5 later on. Several new crossovers have been required in all of this, with some earlier ones being removed. The revised track layout has to be accompanied by signalling alterations, the area being controlled from the Three Bridges Railway Operating Centre (ROC). This has involved changes to the Siemens Westlock interlocking as well as reprogramming the Charing Cross panel at that location. Signalling testing is a vital part of this process, and cannot be carried out until all new trackwork and signal installation is complete. The testing thus becomes a critical path, with Siemens staff being entrusted to do this under Network Rail supervision. In all, around 200 new signalling assets were added or altered which included 50 new signals, 23 point ends and 60 track circuits together with TPWS units. Connecting all of the new signalling infrastructure back to Three Bridges makes use of the Network Rail Telecom FTN (fixed telecoms network) fibrebased network and the associated Thameslink Signalling Private Network (known, unsurprisingly, as TeaSPooN) to give complete dedication, diversity and resilience.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

Planning the Work The meeting with Rail Engineer took place in the site depot located at New Cross Gate and affectionately known as the War Room. To ensure commonality of purpose, the depot is used by staff from Network Rail, Balfour Beatty (for all civil work) and Siemens (for signalling). Just being there to see the wall charts filled with diagrams and project tasks gave reality to the scale as to what had to be done. Every site and every work package had each individual activity listed with the time, work content and progress duly logged. Viewing the method of measurement revealed that any critical items would be shown in red but a quick scan of the charts did not seem to have any red items showing. If nothing else, it instilled confidence. Other subcontractors engaged in the work are MPI for testing support, Vital Rail and Pod-Track for track labour, Sonic Rail Services for conductor rail integrity and Cleshar for electric traction equipment. A novel feature was a huge TV screen at the depot linked to various pole-mounted cameras positioned strategically at the critical work sites. With pan, zoom and tilt facilities, the project engineers could see at first hand what was happening at every location and issue instructions or guidance accordingly. The eight-day blockade utilised nine engineering trains, three tampers, 15 roadrail machines, two rail cranes, one road crane and 6,000 shifts. 10km of new track was effectively installed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Site walk-throughs by the project leaders made sure that nothing had been overlooked and that the correct standards of workmanship had been achieved. A 55-page booklet was prepared, covering all the safety and security requirements as well as details of the possession and work packages, so no-one could later claim they had not been fully briefed.

The final blockade and ongoing work Whilst the end is now in sight, one more big blockade is planned for Christmas 2017. This will bring into use the Thameslink lines over the Bermondsey dive under, new Platforms 4 and 5 for Thameslink services, the commissioning of the new double track Metropolitan Junction leading up to Blackfriars, the completion of the street level concourse, re-opening the platforms for Cannon Street services together with the associated signalling and operating changes

The old London Bridge Power Box will remain in control of the Lewisham area and the Hayes branch interlocking until the 2018 May bank holiday, when control will transfer to Three Bridges ROC. Similarly, the Angerstein interlocking area, covering the Greenwich lines, will transfer at Easter 2019 and the Hither Green to Grove Park area in March 2020. Thereupon, London Bridge Power Box will close. Thameslink trains will again be routed through London Bridge sometime in 2018, whence Automatic Train Operation will be introduced on the central core across London. That will bring its own challenges, but at least all the civil and signalling infrastructure will be in place. Thanks to Mark Somers, the Network Rail project director, and his team for their time during this busy period and to Alexandra Swann, communications manager Thameslink for facilitating the visit.

MPI Rail Division: Building long-term client beneﬁts through recruitment excellence

2017 has been another great year as MPI continues to be the biggest supplier of specialist rail contingent labour throughout the UK. Our successful delivery record goes hand in hand with the excellent safety record of the rail personnel we supply. We are Tier 1 suppliers to the biggest signalling companies in the UK and are the preferred supplier to three TOCS.

MORE THAN JUST A RECRUITMENT AGENCY • Renowned safety record • On-site training programmes • Fixed Price Projects • Dedicated Professional & Technical Team • Trainee Schemes

MPI is always looking to hear from anyone who has experience in Signalling Testing Installation, Telecoms Installation, Systems Engineers, Civils Teams, Cabling Teams and much more. Please contact our Rail Team to register.

01992 501111 rail@mpi.ltd.uk

www.mpi.ltd.uk

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

MARK PHILLIPS

Major closure at Waterloo: August 2017

he fabled lost island city of Atlantis has featured in literature, films and art, but where and what was it really? Who were its inhabitants and what endeavours were they pursuing? Amongst academia, there are many postulated theories, but no agreement.

Venture, however, no further than Waterloo station, in central London, and you will find a purpose-built Atlantis populated by engineers, designers and planners focussed on a specific major endeavour. The Waterloo and Southwest Upgrade project is an ÂŁ800 million investment by Network Rail and the Department for Transport to increase significantly the capacity for trains and passengers on that part of the railway network. This article reports on a major component of this upgrade, which is to extend platforms at Waterloo so that they can accommodate 10-car trains. At present, 113,000 passengers arrive at Waterloo during the three-hour morning rush hour, which is the equivalent of one double-decker bus every eight seconds. The upgrade will increase this capacity to 158,000 passengers (one bus every six seconds).

Alternative approaches Extending Platforms 1 to 4 so they can accomodate 10-car trains takes them out into an area of conflict with existing switch and crossing work. The track layout on the approach to these platforms had therefore to be remodelled and redesigned with the flexibility for trains to arrive and depart from various platforms preserved.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

One possible approach to achieve this reconfiguration would be to plan a series of stageworks over many weekend possessions. Work in each possession would have been a small element in the alteration of the track layout, signalling and third rail arrangements towards the eventual final layout. Each stagework would no doubt have entailed the temporary loss of some flexibility for train movements and this pattern would have continued until all the stageworks were complete.

Whilst this approach would have only necessitated the closure of two, or perhaps four, platforms each weekend, the overall disruption to the station would have continued for many months. The introduction of so many temporary working arrangements would have been complicated for the train planners. In addition, the setting up and dismantling of the work sites so many times would have been less economic for the engineers and the testing and commissioning of the temporary signalling arrangements would have introduced additional risks. Therefore, a much bolder approach was adopted, which was to take the whole of the affected part of the station out of use for a 24-day period. During this major possession it would be possible to reconstruct and extend platforms and complete the necessary associated track, signalling and electrification works in one fell swoop. The upgrade project is the responsibility of the Wessex Capacity Alliance, a partnership of Network Rail, AECOM, Mott MacDonald, Skanska and Colas Rail. Whilst each of these partners has a clear lead role - Network Rail as client, AECOM and Mott MacDonald as designers and Skanska and Colas Rail as contractors - it is apparent that it is a well-integrated partnership, with each and every participant sharing equally in planning and decision-making.

Monday 7 Auguat - two days in.

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE Platform work A general view of the site from Atlantis.

The period from the early hours of Saturday 5 August right through to Tuesday 29 August was selected as the optimum time to take possession of Platforms 1 to 10, with the closure being extended further to also include Platforms 11 to 14 for the final long weekend Friday 25 to Tuesday 29 August. Network Rail deemed that, being during the summer holidays, fewer commuters overall would be inconvenienced by this closure than at other times. Additionally, the major closure had been very well publicised for nearly a year previously, enabling regular travellers to plan accordingly. Earlier in 2017, some major trackworks and installation of a signal gantry over Platforms 1 to 8 had already taken place outside the station approach in order, as much as possible, to reduce the volume of work to be accomplished within the August closure.

could be readily identified by all participants and not misunderstood. Secondly, a comprehensive timeline activity programme, showing every single activity throughout the 24 days, was produced. For certain activities, particularly the more major ones, and where perhaps the time needed for completion was difficult to estimate precisely, an appropriate contingency was allowed for and built in. Also, those activities which were found to be not on the critical path were carefully appraised for their ability to be carried out at any times when planned resources were, for some unforeseen reason, held up on their scheduled task and could be quickly and usefully diverted on to the non-critical path activity.

Platforms 1/2 and 3/4 were demolished and rebuilt with an extension of 40 metres. Platforms 5/6 were demolished and rebuilt at their existing length. Platform 7 was provided with a new wall face to effect a track realignment and Platform 8 was subject to a refurbishment. For all the rebuilt and extended platforms a new form of construction has been adopted. This uses a modular form of precast platform wall unit, known as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;C Sectionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; unit. For simplicity of planning and construction, the platforms were designed to use identical C Section units throughout. The platform units have a centre of gravity such that they are temporarily stable when placed on their foundation whilst still free-standing and also, of course, permanently stable once incorporated into the completed form of platform construction. They are designed to carry the cable management systems, rail systems services on one side and building systems services such as lighting, public address, and power supplies, on the other. A feature of the wall units is that each incorporates a small square cutout in the vertical face. This helps with ventilation under the new platforms and also provides an entry/exit point for cabling as necessary. Before the new platform wall units could be installed, the foundation area had to be thoroughly prepared. This involved demolishing the old

10 August and the new platforms are going in.

Preparation and planning Chris Kitching, contracts engineering manager and multi-disciplinary leader for the Wessex Capacity Alliance, told Rail Engineer that the August closure itself had been years in the planning. It was found that 24 days were needed overall and, to guarantee success, two significant aspects were addressed in the detail of the planning. Firstly, every single component of the new installation, be it a major element such as a precast platform unit, a track sleeper or even something seemingly as minor as a cable clamp, was individually numbered and referenced. This was so that each componentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s place in the plan with its date and time for installation

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

PLATFORM 19

PLATFORM 18 PLATFORM 17

WINDSOR REVERSIBLE

PLATFORM 16 PLATFORM 15

UP WINDSOR DOWN WINDSOR

PLATFORM 14 PLATFORM 13

UP MAIN RELIEF UP MAIN FAST

PLATFORM 12 PLATFORM 11

DOWN MAIN FAST UP MAIN SLOW

PLATFORM 10 PLATFORM 9

DOWN MAIN SLOW

PLATFORM 8 PLATFORM 7

SOUTH SIDING ENGIN EER SS IDI NG

PLATFORM 6 PLATFORM 5

NEW TRACK

PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 3

EXISTING TRACK REMOVED TRACK PLATFORM 2 PLATFORM 1

PLATFORM EXTENSION

platforms and bases right down to the extrados of the masonry underground arches, used for London Underground access, beneath the main line station. The condition of these arches had previously been assessed from below but, during the present work, as each area was exposed, the condition of the waterproofing was checked, engineer’s inspections made and any structural or waterproofing repairs carried out before commencing on the foundation for the new platform wall units. The strip foundations were made with rapid setting, rapid strength-gain concrete, having the ability to take the loading from the platform units only three hours after pouring. The need for the rapid availability of the foundation was an essential part of the overall plan, providing, as it did, a sequential progression of all work from one platform end to the other, with each activity following in close succession - cast foundation, lay units, construct platform deck, excavate, reballast and relay track. Also, to assist with the various activities following hard on each other’s heels, Combisafe barriers, sheeted with heavy duty polythene, were erected along the platform edges as work progressed. This

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

protected those working on the track from concrete placement activity taking place at the higher level. The new platform edge coping stones are provided with Halfen inserts, making the fixing of the Combisafe uprights straightforward. All the precast units were brought to site on engineering trains, then offloaded and set in their final position using road-rail vehicles. With the precast wall units in place, the platform deck could be progressively constructed. This is formed of a reinforced concrete slab cast

directly onto permanent sacrificial steel shuttering spanning, without propping, between the wall units. The concrete for this and the foundations was delivered by pumping from the road access adjacent to the east side of the site near to Platform 1. From Platforms1/2 and 3/4, new stairways have been constructed to give direct access to the London Underground passageways below. The location of these stairways towards the ‘country’ end of the platforms is beyond where the main arches exist and lies in an

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE Another view of the platform extensions under construction.

was to ensure that, throughout the entire programme, there would be available, on every shift, engineers with the correct experience and the appropriate level of delegated authority that would enable them to make decisions there and then on the issues likely to arise. Twenty-four engineering trains were used to deliver new components and remove old materials.

Where and what is Atlantis?

area where the substructure consists of an arrangement of jack arches. However, a neat modification to the structural work was designed which accommodated the stairway boxes. To complement the new platform lengths, the track layout and pointework was changed as can be seen in the accompanying diagram.

Signalling testing The final weekend of the closure was largely devoted to testing and commissioning of all the signalling for the new layout. This required the closure of Platforms 11 to 14 in addition to those already closed. The original plan had been to take this additional closure from Friday 25 to Monday 28 August. The derailment of a passenger train departing from Platform 12 midway through the main works led to the need to take the extra platforms’ closure 24 hours earlier. The derailment, now subject to a Rail Accident Investigation Branch inquiry, caused a complication in some of the ongoing signalling testing. Testers had been available throughout the works and had been working to a programme of testing according to which equipment was progressively available. It had always been the case that complete access to the relevant relay rooms and control rooms could only be gained by complete closure of Platforms 1-14 as the final stage of the overall work. Unfortunately, the derailment caused a hiatus in the original testing regime and ultimately led to the need for the additional day’s closure of Platforms 11 to 14. This, though, was apparently the only significant change to the whole schedule of work throughout three and a half weeks.

Resources At no time throughout the whole 24-day works was the site unstaffed. It was decided to standardise with a pattern of three nine-hour shifts for all contractors, so that every 24-hour period was consistently covered with a one hour overlap. This pattern also included the provision of the COSS (Control of Site Safety) resource, for simplicity of briefings and communication. Typically on a shift, the staffing overall would be 20 engineers, half and half for construction and for track work, 10 supervisory staff with 100 operatives, again half and half, 20 COSS for the various work groups throughout and two or three Network Rail quality managers. Also, a design team was always available during normal daytime office hours. Evaluation of the works programme in detail included an assessment of any issues that might arise on any module. Chris Kitching emphasised that a key element of the planning of staff resources

So, finally, we come to the mystery of Atlantis. The Alliance identified the benefit there would be in having a well-sited and equipped project site office specifically for the August closure. From concept to delivery, such a facility was completed in just twelve weeks. It is a multi-storey site office block mounted on a substantial steel framework and includes a viewing gallery. The block acquired the nickname ‘Atlantis’ and is, in fact, an island just on the eastward edge of Waterloo station looking out over the works. Not only did it provide a major resource for all those involved in the actual work, but the gallery meant that the many visitors to the site could be shown the work in progress clearly, without the need to enter the site itself with the attendant need for PPE and site safety briefings. Atlantis will be dismantled and its location will be handed back as part of the access route to the station, but all those who knew it will recollect the name with pride in connection with their role in an intensive and successful part of the upgrade project.

Waterloo sunset.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Waterloo woes?

s Mark Phillips describes in his article, London Waterloo station was recently the subject of a 24-day partial blockade as significant upgrades were made to the station. Platform extensions, trackwork modifications and signalling upgrades were all undertaken as London’s busiest station underwent its first major upgrade since the arrival of Eurostar in 1994. Scheduled to last from Saturday 5 August to Tuesday 29 August - Monday was a bank holiday - this was a major piece of work. The five organisations that make up the Wessex Capacity Alliance are well integrated and the planning and preparations had been meticulous. Nothing was left to chance. As a result, nothing should have gone wrong. Yet it did. The full reasons won’t be known until at least two enquiries are completed, but here are some early indications.

Slow-speed crash

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Worryingly, this was a failure of the signal interlocking’s detection system as the initial RAIB release states that the train driver and signaller received indications that the points were correctly aligned, and thus locked. The RAIB will conduct a full investigation to identify the circumstances leading to installation of the temporary control system modification, the safety measures provided while the temporary modification was in place, the checking and testing procedures applicable to the modification and any relevant underlying management factors. Although it will take several months to publish the formal report, the serious nature of this incident is such that the lessons from this incident for ongoing signalling project work need to be understood as a matter of urgency. One key issue is the safety measures that were in place. Had the points been clipped and secured, the accident would not have happened. However, the

Network Rail CEO Mark Carne visits the scene.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

The first sign of trouble came early in the morning of Tuesday 15 August, ten days after work commenced. The 05:40 to Guildford, 10-car train made up of a combination of Class 455 and 456 units, pulled out of Platform 11 on time. Two minutes later, having reached a speed of 11mph, it veered to the left, struck a train of empty Network Rail wagons, and came to an immediate halt. Of the 23 passengers and two employees of South West Trains that were on the train, only three were treated at the scene by paramedics and none required hospital treatment. An early investigation by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) revealed that the points were misaligned and had directed the passenger train away from its intended route. The misalignment was a consequence of a temporary modification to the points’ control system.

Use of the term ‘misalignment’ indicates that the points were not set for a particular route. Furthermore, for the train to take the wrong route, the gap between the wrong route’s stock rail and point blade must have been sufficient for the wheel flange. This implies that the points were around mid-position as the train left the platform. The question then arises why should the points be in such an abnormal position. Two possibilities are that the trailing points were incorrectly set for the incoming empty stock move into platform 11 which then burst them, leaving them in mid position, or that, for some unusual set of circumstances, the points moved mid-position after the empty stock train arrived in platform 11.

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE PHOTO: TRISTAN APPLEBY/NETWORK RAIL

Testing overrun Having recovered from the delays caused by the accident, news then broke, early in the morning of Tuesday 29 August, that the engineering works had overrun. All lines were open by 07:20, but the ensuing disruption lasted all day. Word was that this overrun was due to extended signalling testing. There were more delays, albeit short lived, on the morning of Wednesday 30 August after a track circuit failure closed Platforms 1-3. Once again, there was some residual disruption even though the fault was cleared by 07:38. Were these faults connected to the accident two weeks earlier? In a way that’s possible - having experienced such a serious fault, the signal checkers were no doubt particularly diligent and they had also been delayed starting their job. Being the last step in the process, it’s the testers that get the

blame although the problem could have been the delay caused by the accident knocking-on through the project timeline. Signal testing is performed to make sure that there are no remaining faults before a line is returned to service. If a fault is found, that’s a good thing as it can be corrected and the travelling public isn’t put at risk. But that correction takes time, and that’s a bad thing, although it’s far better to wait and only return a line to service when it is 100 per cent safe to do so. And the track circuit failure the following day? Unfortunately, signalling faults do occur. On the 30th there was also a signalling fault between Farnborough Main and Basingstoke, which delayed Southampton-bound

trains. The day before, a points failure at Kew Bridge and another at Portsmouth Harbour caused problems and, to cap it all, a broken-down train between Leatherhead and Effingham Junction closed all lines while a failed freight train between Eastleigh and Southampton Central did the same. So the Waterloo problem could have been mere happenstance. It could also have been another example of new work disturbing old installations and revealing or causing faults. Only a full investigation will give all the answers, and Network Rail and RAIB are undertaking theirs as this is written. However, the barrier train did its job, no one was hurt, and a massive amount of work was achieved over the course of 24 days.

PHOTO: RAIB

Rule Book does not require this as the Person in Charge of the Possession only has to confirm with the signaller which routes are to be kept closed. It will be interesting to see how the RAIB views this requirement. Those who planned the Waterloo works clearly considered that some form of physical protection was necessary. Hence wagons were deliberately placed to protect the workforce behind them from the live railway. It was a step well taken - without them the diverted train could have ploughed into people working on the station improvements. However, had the points been clipped there would not have been a derailment.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Partially complete platforms.

Three projects in concrete

MARK PHILLIPS

he Wessex Capacity Alliance (WCA) is responsible for an £800 million investment to provide extra capacity on services to and from London Waterloo. Most of the work is centred around Waterloo itself, with additional work at key outlying stations.

Three aspects of the upgrade project, which make a significant use of concrete, are described in outline here. When complete, they will have used nearly 2,100 tonnes of in-situ concrete and 570 tonnes of pre-cast concrete units to create the new facilities that will provide the additional passenger capacity. It is worth noting that, had it not been for an imaginative approach to the design on one of these projects, the quantity of concrete required would have been even greater.

Approach viaduct A crucial stage in the redevelopment of Waterloo station to provide the extra capacity needed was the refurbishment of Platforms 20 to 24, the former International Terminal, which had been largely out of use since November 2007. Convertion of this part of the station for use by domestic services would need an operationally more flexible track layout on the approach to the platforms to permit up to 18 trains per hour in and out of these five platforms, compared to the six per hour capacity in the days of Eurostar. It gets more complicated. The optimal track layout for this new service capacity and flexibility would not ‘fit’

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

on the approach viaduct which was installed for the introduction of the international services. It is a very carefully considered series of structures, which threaded the new international tracks above busy streets, over the existing Waterloo masonry arches and with piled foundations avoiding London Underground infrastructure and many utility services. Mott MacDonald, one of the design consultants for the structural aspects of the work at Waterloo, had been the independent checker of the original terminal in 1992. This was to prove very useful in developing the alterations needed to the approach viaduct.

Placing C-section units.

The existing viaduct arrangement consisted of three separate parallel decks with gaps between them. The original proposal was to construct two further, structurally independent, decks to infill the gaps and provide continuity for carrying the new track layout. These additional decks would have required a further 65 piles to carry them, the piling itself being an immensely complex part of the whole work, having to take place with only five metres of headroom under the existing viaduct, needing to avoid many services and requiring disruptive road closures. Some thorough value engineering generated an ingenious alternative proposal. Could infill decking be designed such that it would act integrally with the existing decking? If it could be shown that this was feasible structurally, then there would be no

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Steel fixing deck.

need for the new piles, which would generate a significant saving in time, construction risk and cost. Some further slight modifications were made to the proposed track layout in order to minimise the longitudinal extent of deck infills needed. Many different loading combinations were analysed to confirm the design. It was found that, under certain combinations, the existing bearings would be overstressed, or unsuitable in other ways, for their new loading conditions, so would have to be replaced. Confirmation that the existing substructure of piles, pile caps and leaf piers could take the new loading patterns

was also established. Soil investigation and pile loading test results from the original work in the early 1990s were invaluable in completing an assessment of the substructureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity. Even with that information, it was essential to carry out accurate modelling of the soil-structure interaction to confirm that the reuse of the existing substructure was feasible with the new loading conditions. Having confirmed that this was possible, the design for the new arrangement consisted of the partial demolition of the edges of the existing viaduct slabs, the modification of the structural articulation, and the casting of new in-situ concrete infill slabs to join the existing decks.

The connection between the new and the existing decking, by reinforcement bar lapping, was designed to minimise the amount of edge demolition required. The design for the new decking infills and for the bearings both required complex finite element analyses. These had to consider many different loading situations, according to the position of the live train loads, for which four different situations were analysed with associated vertical and horizontal loads (traction, braking, centrifugal and nosing) in addition to all the usual structural load parameters to be considered. Two hydro robots were used for exposing the reinforcement in the areas where the lapping was to be carried out. 1,050 tonnes of C40/50 concrete was used for the infill slabs, with a CIIIA mix with shrinkage reducing admixture, to reduce the risk of cracks in the dry joints. The collaborative approach to this work between the Wessex Capacity Alliance partners produced a very effective solution to the modification of the approach viaduct with estimated savings of 17 weeks in the construction period, 1,480 tonnes of CO2 and ÂŁ5 million in cost. This work was completed during 2016 in preparation for the temporary use of Platforms 20 to 24 during the major closure of the other side of the station in August 2017.

Tie-in steel.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Concrete pumping from the access road. Atlantis is visible in the rear.

Platform rebuilding and extension Rebuilding and extension works to provide capacity for 10-car trains on Platforms 1 to 8 at Waterloo was completed this August. This work had to be achieved in a very intensive construction period during the recent 24 day closure of the whole east side of the station. There were six key elements for the success of this whirlwind installation: »» The use of pre-cast concrete units to the fullest extent possible; »» Specification of rapid hardening concrete for the platform wall foundations; »» In-situ concrete placement by pumping; »» Delivery of pre-cast units by rail; »» Placement of platform units by RoadRail Vehicles (RRVs); »» The use of sacrificial shuttering for the platform reinforced concrete slab decking. A total of 161 pre-cast ‘C’ section platform wall units, manufactured from C45/55 concrete and each 2.5 metres in length, weighing 2.2 tonnes and with an associated over-sail unit weighing 1.1 tonnes, were delivered to the site by engineering train and unloaded and positioned using RRVs. To permit the various stages of the work to follow one another as closely as possible, a rapid hardening C32/40 concrete specification was used for the wall foundations, with a required strength of 20MPa gained in only two hours. The 140 tonnes of in-situ concrete for the foundations was all placed by pumping, up to 75 metres distance, from a delivery point just outside the station.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Kingspan sacrificial shuttering units were used to form the new platform decking and, all the in-situ concrete, another 750 tonnes of C32/40 specification, was again pumped to create the mesh-reinforced slabs.

New lift shaft at Vauxhall station Vauxhall station is the first station after leaving Waterloo and has four island platforms built atop a long masonry arch viaduct. Congestion relief on Platforms 7 and 8 is needed and the WCA is constructing an additional set of stairs at the country end of these platforms. To accommodate these stairs it is necessary to relocate the lift shaft. The existing station viaduct structure relies on continuity and buttressing for structural stability. The horizontal thrust at the spring line from one arch is balanced by forces from the adjacent arches.

Casting platform strip foundations.

Works to Platforms 7 and 8 necessitated breaking out a three-metre-wide section of arch to allow for the construction of the new lift shaft, which would affect the existing thrust flow. As the removed section would be small when considering the overall width of the viaduct, it is possible that the thrust would have redistributed. However, arches are complex and difficult to analyse and the WCA designed structural elements to provide a defined and alternative thrust path to ensure that the stability of the arches was not compromised. These elements are the new in-situ reinforced concrete walls of the lift shaft and a transfer beam keyed into the pier. Strain gauges installed on the new concrete elements confirmed that the thrust was now taken through them. The in-situ part of the lift shaft is constructed up to the level of the arch intrados. Once the three-metre length of the arch had been demolished to make way for the lift shaft, four pre-cast units were installed above the in situ work to complete the shaft. The in-situ part of the new shaft did all the arch propping and so no temporary works were needed for overall stability. The pre-cast units were made by Shay Murtagh and the work will be completed in 2018. Generating extra capacity from Waterloo station is an enormously complex programme involving all engineering disciplines, of which concrete engineering is perhaps the least wellknown but vital part of this work. 2,700 tonnes of new concrete used in the Waterloo completed approach viaduct and platform works, with more required for forthcoming Vauxhall lift shaft works, demonstrate this in no small measure.

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

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

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

STRUCTURAL PRECAST FOR RAILWAYS Safety solutions for earthworks and drainage GRP Handrail System, giving you peace of mind on site Our GRP Handrail System, now available in grey and yellow, is corrosion resistant, non-conductive and nonmagnetic, making it perfect for many applications on site. Made of premiumquality glass reinforced plastic, it has a very high strength to weight ratio.

CALL OUR TEAM TODAY ON 0117 970 2420

Email sales@eziklampsystems.com or call us to discuss your project.

Visit us online today at eziklampsystems.com

Bridge Deck Construction Station Platforms Viaduct Slabs Bespoke Units

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

www.moore-concrete.com Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Chipping Sodbury Tunnel A saturated environment

COLLIN CARR

hipping Sodbury tunnel is situated to the east of Bristol Parkway station on the Paddington to Cardiff Great Western main line (GWML). The 2.5-mile long tunnel was opened in 1902, ensuring that the main line to South Wales would run under, and not impact on, the picturesque Badminton estate that is located above. The only evidence of the tunnel’s existence at ground level is a row of six elegant Grade 2-listed ventilation shafts which have been tastefully designed to add character to the surrounding countryside. The tunnel was one of the last major railway tunnels to be built in the UK on the classic mainline network. It has also acquired an unenviable reputation for frequent flooding, causing passenger and freight trains to be cancelled or diverted on a regular basis. The reason this flooding has become such a regular occurrence is due to the fact that the tunnel was constructed through an area known as an aquifer and, as a consequence, it has been a nightmare for railway maintenance engineers over the decades.

Water-bearing permeable rock An aquifer, as readers may well be aware, is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock. While aquifers can occur at varying depths below the surface, those closer to the surface are not only more likely to be used for water supply and irrigation but are also topped up whenever there is local rainfall. In the case of Chipping Sodbury tunnel, whenever there is rainfall, huge amounts of water gravitate toward the tunnel area. If the rainfall is significant, springs can emerge through the track ballast and the brick lining within the tunnel. On one occasion, the volume of water entering the tunnel was measured at 2.5 cubic metres per second.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The dilemma for the engineer who is trying to resolve this problem is that pumping water out into local streams and rivers usually means that the water goes on a short trip through the local strata and then re-emerges in the tunnel or the approaching cuttings. It is like an aqua/ water roundabout. It is exasperating for train operators and a daunting challenge for engineers responsible for keeping the tunnel open.

Impact on the environment Given the significant volumes of water involved, Network Rail continues to work very closely with the Environment Agency in designing a scheme for the tunnel and its surroundings. Also, the Chipping Sodbury project is one of a number of schemes under the Department for Transport’s Flood Resilience Programme. This £26.5 million programme was established after extreme weather in 2012 and 2014 caused extensive disruption to the rail network. The aim of the programme is to reduce the risk of flooding at key locations in both the Thames Valley and the South West and to ensure that, when flooding does occur, train services can be resumed at a quicker rate, reducing disruption for passengers.

Electrification Mott MacDonald was invited by Network Rail to analyse and prioritise these flooding hotspots and develop outline schemes for improvement. Chipping Sodbury was identified as the second highest priority closely behind Cowley Bridge in Exeter (issue113, March 2014 and issue 100, February 2013), where currently two schemes are being developed. Many local initiatives and schemes have been tried out in the past, but with only marginal success. However, with the imminent introduction of the electrification of the main line from Paddington to Cardiff it has been decided that it is time to challenge nature and sort this perennial problem out once and for all.

Dissipating water Phil Morton, Network Rail’s project manager for the tunnel’s flood alleviation scheme, explained the details of the work now being carried out. He emphasised that the focus was on finding a more effective way of dissipating the water and, therefore, dramatically reducing the need to close the tunnel. The original plan was to carry out part of the work during two weekend blockades but, as the GWML Electrification project emerged, opportunity was taken to

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

piggyback on a 28-day blockade that started on 19 August and lasted until 15 September. The work already planned included extension to platforms at Bristol Parkway, installing electrification equipment in Chipping Sodbury and Alderton tunnels as well as piling for electrification masts throughout the route. In November 2016, AMCO was awarded a ÂŁ2.5 million contract to carry out certain elements of the proposed scheme and Arup was also invited to develop detailed design work to support the scheme. As Philip explained, the first phase of work carried out in this blockade was completed successfully and it entailed installing a 22-metre long cross drain, using 1.2-metre outside-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic pipe, 3.5 metres below sleeper bottom at the west end of the tunnel. The pipe has a capacity of 866 litres per second.

Old brick culvert Before the pipe could be installed, two sidings had to be removed. Also, temporary bridging structures were installed to support cables and services

alongside short sections of the main line. The path of this cross drain is designed to intercept the Up and Down cess drains. This wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t such a problem, but there is also an old brick culvert that runs through the tunnel along the six-foot, at a shallower depth than that proposed for the cross drain.

This old brick culvert has a flat, 700mmwide base with a 900mm span to the crown of the culvert arch. Significant volumes of water are carried out of the tunnel by this structure to the local Kingrove River, so any interference with this structure could pose a significant risk.

Resin and hot water The culvert needed to be removed to enable the new cross drain to be installed. First, CCTV cameras were used to determine the state of the culvert and resin saturated lining tubes were installed into the piping. The resin was then cured using hot water, thus securing both ends of a three-metre section. Water flowing down the culvert was pumped into a lagoon located in the Up cess from a manhole adjacent to the three-metre section that was to be removed. The section was then taken out and the formation was excavated down to 4.5 metres, requiring the removal of approximately 2,000 tonnes of material.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

The plastic pipe for the new cross drain was then positioned on carefully prepared and consolidated ground. A new three-metre precast concrete trough and arched lid was installed to replace the brick culvert. It was sealed and waterproofed before backfilling with pea shingle, 6F5 aggregate and ballast, and then reinstating the track.

Volume increase by eight All this was completed successfully, ready for the next stages of the work. As already stated, the new cross drain, which now receives water from the Up and Down cess drains, flows into a lagoon situated in the Up cess. The volume of this lagoon is going to be increased eight times, so that it will be able to store 11 million litres of water, the equivalent of four and a half times an Olympic swimming pool. To create this significantly enlarged sump, a large amount of spoil will have to be removed which will involve 26 spoil trains, the equivalent of more than 1,000 lorry movements. The work is planned to start in November this year and, weather permitting, will be completed by February 2018. In addition, two new canister pumping stations will be constructed, each with an inlet diameter of around 7.5 metres and an outlet of four metres. One will be situated at the outlet of the new cross drain and will have the capacity to suck 1,000 litres of water per second. The second pump, which will have a lower capacity, will be at the outlet of the lagoon into the Kingrove stream and will be used to pump water into the river system only when the local terrain is able to cope with the capacity. It is expected that this work will be completed by May 2018.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The water running through the brick culvert in the six-foot will continue to do so and it will discharge straight into the Kingrove stream. This will reduce the amount of times the pumps cut in and out, therefore saving on energy, efficiency and maintenance. However, there is a feedback from the culvert into the new cross drain that can be used to prevent water backing up back into the tunnel when weather conditions are extreme.

A headache for previous engineers All of this work will not guarantee that the route will never be closed in future because of flooding, but there is a

clear expectation that the result will be a considerable amount of additional resilience built into the infrastructure. However, given the effects of climate change and the ever-changing state of the countryside, work like this is essential just to maintain current levels of flooding occurrences. Having said that, it does feel that Philip and his team are going to make significant improvements to a location that has been the bane of many a railway engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life over past generations. It is also an essential improvement that will help to keep train services running from London to Cardiff through Bristol Parkway.

ONE THING CONNECTS ALL THESE MAJOR TUNNELLING PROJECTS. OUR BESPOKE GROUT FORMULAS. Sometimes, off the shelf isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t quite right for the job. So when you need something more than a standard tunnelling grout, our experts in the Pozament labs will create it for you. Their technical knowledge allows us to develop bespoke formulations that are precisely matched to your project. All quality controlled and factory tested to guarantee consistent performance and availability, whatever the application .

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Glasgow Underground Network

Crossrail Link North London

Pozament â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The specialist packed products division of Tarmac. For more information on the Pozament tunnelling grout range, visit pozament.co.uk or call our Sales Team on 03444 630 046

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Best laid plans H

idden by the big-bang schemes that commanded everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention through August was a routine track realignment at Moses Gate, a district to the south-east of Bolton. The job, which added another piece to the

sprawling jigsaw of the Great North Rail Project, involved clearing a short section of the Manchester-Preston route for electrification and 100mph running.

The work had been planned as part of a blockade which shut the southern end of the line from Saturday 12 August to Monday 28 August (a bank holiday), the sharpest focus being on platform, track, signalling and overhead line works at Bolton station.

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hold back From Farnworth, three-quarters of a mile to the southeast, the railway passes through a cutting on its approach to Moses Gate station. Immediately before the platforms is an overbridge replaced in 1968 - carrying the main A6053 Bolton Road and part of its junction with the A575. The structure is skewed by 55 degrees and, as a result, extends for some 35 metres.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Until recently, the wedge of land on its south (Down) side between the road and the railway had been retained by a wall 18 metres long. Beyond this, a similar length of slope was battered back and soil-nailed in 2015. Since around that time, water had been recorded coming through both the wall and adjacent bridge abutment, causing track maintenance issues. United Utilities conducted tests to determine the source; these proved inconclusive, but it was reported that no leaks could be found from the water main that crosses the bridge under the pavement on the east side.

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

A trestle was erected to temporarily prop the bridge deck.

Nevertheless, this had become enough of a problem for a remediation scheme to be pushed forward as part of the enabling works for electrification. Network Rail contracted the Buckingham Group to deliver it, the firm having previously delivered platform works at Moses Gate. The intention was to remove the Down line, install new drainage and dig out the wet bed associated with the water ingress. Both tracks would be slewed, the Up by 100mm and the Down by 150mm to resolve a gauging issue caused by the retaining wall which, to assist further, would have its brickwork scabbled back over a distance of about five metres. At the station, the platform copings also had to be reset to follow the new track alignment.

Critical path To ensure the stability of the retaining wall was not affected by the drainage works, excavations were limited to 300mm below sleeper level. In addition, arrangements were put in place to monitor the wall every two hours. On the first Saturday afternoon - with good progress being made - signs of movement were recorded. This became significant over a six-hour period, with the wall being pushed towards the track by 140mm. The southernmost section of bridge parapet cracked and slipped, prompting

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

The retaining wall after demolition.

its removal to prevent any risk of it falling onto those below. But at eight oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;clock that evening, the decision was taken to withdraw the workforce on safety grounds. Whilst this was the only tenable option, it came with the potential for repercussions at other sites along the line. During the following Monday night, the blockade plan required six engineering trains to pass through Moses Gate on the Down line to service Amey Sersa S&C renewals in Bolton. Fortunately, no more movement of the retaining wall was recorded in the 24 hours after work was suspended; this allowed ballast to be tipped at the toe - thus resisting any further movement - whilst some of the brickwork defects were stitched and grouted. Thereafter, the Down line was relaid and slewed into the six-foot by 160mm in order to maintain the correct gauge. The trains passed through safely at 5mph.

By this stage, it was already clear that the retaining wall would have to be removed so the process of designing a solution got underway immediately. Plans started to emerge during Monday 14th August, led by consultants Tony Gee and Partners from their offices in Manchester and Hong Kong, an approach that ensured continuity of effort around the clock. On the morning of Thursday 17th, the site team emailed United Utilities to express concern at the volume of water coming from the abutment. An initial requirement was to excavate material from behind its southeast corner; as part of this process, the buried services crossing the bridge had to be exposed. With the tarmac removed, progress was made using a Vac-Ex suction system. At around 16:45, a water main - passing a couple of metres from where the work was taking place burst suddenly.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

(Above) The first concrete arrives. (Left) Formwork is assembled for the abutment repair. Now what?

Full flow Within half-an-hour, 140 metres of railway looked more like a canal. The influx of water from the lower part of the abutment was now considerable, whilst significant quantities were also being discharged from weep holes cored by the team through the retaining wall to relieve the pressure. As new paths were created, longitudinal fractures opened in the brick and stonework; a movement of 240mm was recorded and a large bulge developed. Mud was deposited on the track, washed out from behind the wall where a void was created. The main road had to be closed and local residents were left without water until the early hours of the following morning. Although the supply to the main was quickly turned off, difficulties with a valve meant the flow did not fully stop until Saturday afternoon - to address this, pumping equipment had to be brought in. Despite the depth of the inundation, the water had gone from the railway within 24 hours - testament to the efficacy of the new drainage. However it had caused the tracks to lift, meaning they would have to be re-laid before a 100mph train service could be introduced.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The dismantling of the retaining wall continued in tandem with the excavation at the southeast corner of the bridge abutment. The team’s expectation - based on the construction drawings - was that concrete fill had been poured behind the abutment wall - a four-feet thick masonry structure - to help support the deck slab. However, it became increasingly apparent that there was no concrete: the load was largely being carried by the stonework. Although investigations revealed the abutment’s condition elsewhere to be generally good, this discovery added a substantial new element to the design and site works - the requirement to stabilise that corner of the bridge. In all likelihood, it was this that pushed the programme beyond the blockade’s end-date of Monday 28 August, partly resulting from the need to erect a trestle - blocking the Down line - to temporarily prop the deck. Recovery from the burst water main was well in hand and could probably have been finished on time.

Moving forward Whilst the rest of us were enjoying an uncharacteristically pleasant August Bank Holiday Monday, staff from Network Rail and Buckingham were getting to grips with the abutment reconstruction. Having dismantled a section of the masonry wall approximately four metres in length, formwork was assembled in advance of the following day’s first concrete delivery from Hanson. Once poured and cured, the process was repeated, building up in three lifts of 1.5 metres to meet the bridge deck. By the end of the week, this task was complete. To replace the retaining wall, five precast concrete cylinders, 2.5 metres in diameter, were assembled in an excavation at the toe of the cutting slope and filled with concrete. A sixth may be installed as part of the permanent design, which is still being developed. The railway was then cleared, allowing Buckingham to restore and tamp the tracks on the new 100mph alignment.

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE Services between Manchester and Bolton resumed on Wednesday 6 September, albeit with a 20mph speed restriction imposed through the site. This was soon raised to 50mph, first on the Up line - on 7 September - and on the Down the following day. The tracks will need to be renewed before 100mph running can be introduced. Trains started serving Moses Gate station again on Monday 11 September after Story Contracting had attended to reinstate the copings and platform surfaces.

All together now Work continues on site, but the immediate priority - getting passengers on the move again - has been accomplished. The water main is being diverted to the other side of the bridge, but this is complicated by the shallow depth of cover available. Partly as a result, it cannot yet be confirmed when the highway will be reopened for vehicular use. Provision for pedestrian access has been in place throughout. Obviously, the disruption impacts both on locals and those for whom

the main road was regularly travelled. Ongoing dialogue with the Council ensures all parties share a common purpose; there is a clear intent to get the job done as quickly as possible. But this is the nature of unpredictable events - they pose challenges that are rarely quick to resolve: design, procurement, logistics, manpower. All these have tested the team from Network Rail and Buckingham as an everyday task escalated first into a local difficulty, then an emergency situation. They were helped out by the staff from Story, who would otherwise have been dealing with the platform copings, and a UPAC piling team, redeployed from a site near Farnworth Tunnel. More hands make lighter work. As is so often the case, the railway really comes together when it’s up against it. Thanks to Olivia Boland, Network Rail’s scheme project manager, for her help with this article.

Editor’s comment

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

This article by Graeme Bickerdike brings back memories. When I started work with British Rail in 1968 as a booking clerk at Pendleton Broad St, my home town of Bolton was beyond the 8 miles 39 chains limit for a residential free pass. I therefore had to get a pass to Moses Gate, which was only 8 miles 24 chains, and then walk home. Happy days! David Shirres

The precast concrete cylinders installed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

KEITH FENDER

LOW PROBABILITY - HIGH IMPACT Partly constructed tunnel collapse paralyses European rail freight network PHOTO: KEITH FENDER

SBB Cargo Class 482 TRAXX locos haul a freight train over the route in September 2016.

round lunchtime on Saturday 12 August, groundwater broke into one of two new high-speed rail tunnels under construction for German Railways (DB) just south of the German town of Rastatt, situated on the very busy Karlsruhe to Basel main line used by up to 200 freight and another 150+ passenger services daily - the busiest double track main line anywhere in Europe. By sheer bad luck, the tunnel collapse happened at the only point the new 4.27km long tunnels cross under the existing line and significant earth movement on the surface resulted. The existing line suffered deformation for around 150 metres and had to be closed immediately. DB’s network planners had never expected such an event and, as a result, all the other routes from Germany to Switzerland were closed due to engineering and electrification work. So the only diversionary routes for up to 200 freight trains a day involved neighbouring France or a much longer route via Austria!

Background In September 1996, the Swiss and German governments signed an agreement in Locarno. Germany committed to providing more and better capacity for freight traffic destined for the then planned, now built, Lötschberg and Gotthard base tunnels under the Alps in Switzerland, which had been approved in 1992.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Reconstruction of the 182km section of main line from Karlsruhe to Basel on the eastern side of the Rhine in Germany into a four track railway, with 250km/h fast passenger lines and two more tracks for freight (and regional passenger trains), had been an objective for German Railways since the 1980s. However, despite the 1996 agreement with Switzerland, no new funding was provided by the German Government until 2003. The Rotterdam to Genoa corridor – of which the line forms a major part, was identified as a priority by the EU in the 1980s. By 2017, several sections have been completed, others had construction agreed or underway, although the middle part of the route is still being hotly debated! At the northern end of the Karlsruhe to Basel route, a new 16km two-track 250km/h line is being built to avoid the town of Rastatt, where the existing line has permanent speed restrictions caused by curves and junctions with multiple other lines at Rastatt station. It was the

eastern bore of the new tunnels under Rastatt that suffered the collapse in midAugust 2017.

Project and financing The new 16km long Rastatt avoiding line, designed for 250km/h operation, is under construction from just north of Durmersheim Nord on one of two existing lines from Karlsruhe to Rastatt with two new high speed tracks built to the east of the existing line parallel with the new B36 road (which was built in 2007). The northern ground alignment for the new railway was prepared at the same time as the new road was built. The new line will then pass beneath the town of Rastatt in a new 4.27km twin-bore tunnel, which has been under construction using TBMs since May 2016 when work on the east (now damaged) bore began; work on the west bore began in September 2016. The tunnels start just north of the town ending at Rastatt Süd (Rastatt South), around 5km north of the city of Baden Baden, where the new line will join the rebuilt four-track line to Offenburg, which has been in operation since 2004. Planning permission for the Rastatt avoiding line was granted in 1998 but the €693 million financing package was only agreed in

PHOTO: KEITH FENDER

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

PHOTO: SIEMENS

DB ICE3 Approaching Rastatt station.

Siemens Vectron locomotives are not approved to run in France.

2012. The Rastatt avoiding line section was planned to open in 2022 although, with the delay caused by the tunnel collapse, this is now in doubt.

Tunnelling The tunnels are being constructed at a cost of €312 million by special purpose organisation Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) TunnelRastatt comprising technical tunnelling specialism provided by Stuttgart-based Ed.Züblin AG (owned by Austrian civil engineering group Strabag) and overall project management provided by German civil engineering firm Hochtief AG. Herrenknecht supplied the two TBMs to ARGE TunnelRastatt for the project. German national rail infrastructure manager DB Netze is the customer.

Geology The tunnels are being built in sedimentary rock that is geologically ‘recent’. The strata consists of Tertiary and more recent Quaternary sediments and alluvial deposits (sand, silt and gravel based) - the top layers of which were left as the glaciers retreated at the end of the most recent Ice Age which, along with the river itself, created the flat, wide Rhine valley between the Black Forest on the German side and the Vosges mountains in France.

The Rhine is around seven kilometres west from Rastatt and underground rivers flowing into the Rhine are a feature of the local geology, as is the presence of ground water, especially in the sandy sediments where it is found up to 10 metres below ground. DB and its engineers are very experienced in tunnel construction in sandy areas where there is a high water table - much of the work undertaken since German re-unification in Berlin (including Berlin Hauptbahnhof) has been in similar conditions.

Tunnel technicalities »» TBMs - Herrenknecht Mixed Shield machines S-953 “Wilhelmine” and S-954 “Sibylla-Augusta”; »» Power rating - TBM 4,500kW, cutter head 1,920kW; »» Weight - 2,300 tonnes; »» Length - 93 metres; »» Cost - €36 million (two TBMs); »» Outer diameter - cutter head 10.94 metres; »» Inner diameter (completed tunnel) 9.6 metres; »» Concrete segments - Seven two-metrelong concrete segments per ring of tunnel lining; 30,000 in total (both tubes); »» Tunnel length - 4.27km; »» Tunnel depth below ground - max 20 metres, min 4 metres; »» Two bores - connected by eight emergency cross passages every 500 metres; »» Material to be excavated and processed - 710,000 cubic metres; »» Tunnel construction railway - 900mm gauge with seven works locos (Schöma CFL180DCL/ CFL200DCL) and one Schöma CEL60 battery loco for rescue train. Sources Herrenknecht / DB AG

Tunnelling approach Due to the local geology and the presence of groundwater and underground rivers, the tunnel’s builders had opted for TBMs rather than other methods. To enable the TBM to operate in the area, and in locations where it would be running close to the surface, the ground to be tunnelled through was being stabilised in advance of the TBM by being frozen, using either brine or liquid nitrogen, and injected with cement-based grouting prior to tunnelling. The TBMs utilise a mixed shield - part of which is pressurised and which can withstand groundwater in the rock being excavated to a pressure of 15 Bar. Ground

PHOTO: HERRENKNECHT

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

The damage to the track can be clearly seen as concrete is pumped into the tunnel below.

freezing and sprayed shotcrete concrete is being used to excavate the cross passages between the two tunnel tubes. Watertight concrete troughs, built in 2014/2015, form cuttings 800 and 895 metres long at either end of the tunnel being built by the TBMs; the work at both ends involved open excavation and construction, some of it underwater due to ground water levels. The concrete troughs /cuttings are designed to prevent groundwater flooding into the completed tunnel at either portal - from their mass and length they are designed to exert enough pressure on any water present to retain it in surrounding soil and rock rather than entering the tunnels.

Filling the tunnel bore.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The collapse and aftermath The new tunnel section that collapsed was around 50 metres long and the collapse occurred after water entered the eastern bore just behind the TBM shield / cutter head and caused a section of the newly constructed but not yet fully lined tunnel to fail. Nobody was injured and remote sensors above ground detected the collapse which led to signals being set to danger on the railway line above - by good fortune no train was passing as the hole opened up under the track! The front of the TBM itself was actually approximately 50 metres beyond the location of the main damage aboveground.

PHOTO: DB

The section which failed was only around five metres deep at the point of collapse, leading to major earth movement on the surface which, in turn, lead to serious deformation of a 150-metre long section of the main line railway directly above the void where the tunnel had been.

Immediate response From 12 August onwards, DB Netze with its contractors undertook work to stabilise the underground construction site. The void under the track was filled with concrete to plug the tunnel and protect the nearly four kilometres of completed tunnel to the north. To minimise risk to local inhabitants, some were initially

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Removing the damaged railway.

PHOTO: DB

required to leave their homes near the tunnel construction site. A 160-metre long section from the plug to the TBM was then filled with 10,500 cubic metres of concrete; an operation that took 150 hours of continuous concrete pouring and was completed on 25 August. Initial assessment of the damage suggested that the ground-freezing system failed for the section under the existing railway. What caused this has yet to be confirmed, although hot summer weather, coupled with heavy rain, has been suggested as the likely cause.

Preparing for reinstatement Once the site was stabilised, DB Netze had to quickly plan and organise how to reopen the railway and enable the tunnel construction to be completed. A section of the existing main line was removed - around 2,500 tonnes of ballast and earth plus all rails, 400 sleepers and OLE equipment. DB then constructed a 120-metre long, 15-metre wide, one-metre deep concrete slab on which to place the existing ground level railway. This will act, effectively, as a bridge over the eastern bore tunnel route,

so stabilising the site and allowing the reopening of the railway above despite the damaged tunnel remaining underneath. This required 1,100 cubic metres of concrete delivered in 130 truckloads to the site. Despite the precise cause of the August failure not yet being established, DB has decided to take no chances with a repeat of the August incident and a second, similar slab will be built 150 metres north to cover the area where the western bore will pass under the railway. Having been paused after the 12 August incident,

Arrangement once the track is replaced over the concrete 'bridge'.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Constructing the concrete slab ‘bridge’ on which the railway would be relaid.

tunnelling for the western bore resumed during the first week of September. At that point, it was around 800 metres north of the point it will cross under the existing railway - it was expected to pass underneath before Christmas 2017. After the two slabs have cured, the railway will be rebuilt on top of them, enabling the line to re-open. Initially, in mid-August, DB had suggested the closure might be around two weeks but, ten days after the collapse, announced that the line will re-open on 2 October 2017. The eastern bore TBM is actually around 50 metres beyond where the main damage above ground is, and it is planned to recover the remains of the TBM (entombed in concrete) by digging it out of the ground. How construction of the final section of the eastern bore will continue remains unclear. The section remaining unbuilt of the eastern tube is less than 500 metres - although 160 metres of this is now filled with concrete.

Impact on rail operations The existing main line railway above the tunnel workings was closed to all rail traffic on 12 August. Immediately after the incident, DB said it would offer alternate paths and routes to the 200-or-so freight trains routed via Rastatt daily and would consider the use of road transport on parallel motorways or shipping some freight on the River Rhine where viable.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

PHOTO: DB

DB’s immediate options to divert freight traffic on its own network were, in fact, severely limited by existing pre-planned closures on both of the other electrified routes from Germany to Switzerland and parts of the non electrified route via Lindau - all for engineering work. Some of this work was curtailed once the scale of the Rastatt problem became clear; the electrified Stuttgart-SingenSchaffhausen route being made available in early September - sooner than previously planned. Initially, in mid-August, DB had suggested the closure might be around two weeks but, ten days after the collapse, announced that the line would remain shut for weeks; with 2 October 2017 finally confirmed as the reopening date. Rail freight operators, trade bodies and customers have been highly critical of both the DB response and the tardy offers of neighbouring countries’ railways to assist. The low availability of train paths - especially in France, which also has a two-track electrified main line on the other side of the Rhine - led to major delays for many shippers. After several weeks, Swiss Railways (SBB) announced in early September it had agreement to use its own Frenchspeaking drivers in France, although the number permitted to operate there was limited. The majority of freight trains on the Karlsruhe-Basel route are operated by

modern Bombardier Traxx or Siemens Eurosprinter/Vectron locomotives. Whilst some Traxx can operate in France, many of those in regular use between Germany and Switzerland may not be fitted with the necessary French safety and signalling systems. Siemens Eurosprinter/ Vectron locomotives are not approved for use in France. SBB, working together with DB Cargo, introduced a freight shuttle service linking the major marshalling yards in Stuttgart and Zürich and, by mid September, announced they would operate up to 116 trains on this corridor daily; up from 62 a day at the beginning of September. Many rail freight operators and shippers have stated their intention to seek compensation for business lost due to the closure of the line from both DB and, potentially, the German government. Private rail freight operators and customers have also questioned why DB could not have built a temporary, singletrack diversionary route, enabling freight trains to pass the tunnel collapse site at slow speed; it doesn’t appear that DB ever seriously considered this option. Serious questions have also been raised at EU level about the lack of suitable diversionary routes and the lack of adequate cooperation between neighbouring national railway infrastructure managers.

www.datum-group.com

Critical Rail Temperature Monitoring & Dynamic Track Void Monitoring Monitor track voiding and critical rail temperature remotely. Our Network Rail approved RailtempMate and VoidMate systems provide Permanent Way managers with continuous access to live data via smartphone, tablet or computer. Installed in seconds, compact, portable and robust, the monitoring equipment is designed for the rail environment and solar powered for long-term deployment. RailtempMate and VoidMate provide crucial information about the presence of track voiding and rail track temperature including alerts when limits are reached.

Network Rail Approved PA05 / 05507 - RailtempMate PA05 / 06798 - VoidMate

Cable free Remote controlled Simple to install Compact and portable Configurable alarm settings Removes requirements for track access

RailtempMate CRT MONITOR

VoidMate

T R AC K VO I D M O N I TO R

Any questions? Please call us +44 (0)161 797 5511

MADE IN THE UK

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

Bridging the gap at Kenilworth

n 2016, construction work got underway at Kenilworth to create

Through the eye of a needle

a new station building, platforms and a footbridge as part of an

Graham Construction, a family-owned company with a proud heritage dating back to the eighteenth century, was appointed principal contractor and is currently on site. The project involves the construction of new platforms, a new station building, cycle sheds, two lift shafts and a footbridge. Additionally, a car park and bus stop/turning facility will be provided. The new facility is located on the site where the previous station once stood. Although the original station was demolished, the original footbridge and public right of way have remained in place ever since. This existing footbridge will be carefully restored and re-furbished as part of the works while an additional bridge, this one including lifts for better accessibility, has recently been installed. A 500-tonne crane was used to install the footbridge, which spans 16 metres between supports and weighs 13 tonnes, within an eight-hour weekend possession on Saturday 8 July between 00:30 and 08:40. A further three five-hour possessions were utilised during midweek possessions to install the precast units which form the two lift shafts.

ambitious integrated transport system. For many years, residents in the Warwickshire town had lobbied hard for a new railway

station following the closure and demolition of the old facility in 1965. Since then, the population of Kenilworth has increased by 50 per cent and today it is home to more than 24,000 people.

In 2013, following intricate negotiations, Warwickshire County Council confirmed that a new station would at last be built. Working closely with Network Rail, it was agreed that the facility, situated on the rail route between Leamington Spa and Coventry and very close to Kenilworthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s town centre, would receive a new hourly train service - enabling connections at Coventry to and from the north of the county, Birmingham and London and connections from Leamington Spa to London and the Thames Valley. The local authority anticipates that the new station will boost the local economy, providing access to jobs, education and leisure opportunities within the town.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE Although that all sounds fairly routine, it was actually a complex operation described by the project team as, “threading the eye of a needle having one eye shut and standing on one leg”. This is because the new bridge span, had to be manoeuvred up and over the existing bridge, avoiding local residential housing only metres away from one of the supports. In total, some five bridge segments were installed over the course of these possessions, as were 16 concrete lift shaft segments, the heaviest of which weighed in at 10.5 tonnes and was lifted at a radius of 49 metres. Outside of footbridge possession works, the Graham team is progressing well with the wider project. All piled foundations are installed, platform beams and slabs are in position, the station building is in the process of being erected and the car park works are underway.

Complex projects Graham has a team of over 2,000 talented and highly qualified individuals who deliver innovative and value-adding services and projects across a wide variety of sectors. Rail contracts director Jonathan Kerr, who was appointed earlier this year, is a highly experienced and widely respected civil engineering professional who has worked on a variety of complex infrastructure projects, primarily consisting of rail, bridges, highways and marine.

Recent projects undertaken by Jonathan and his team include the £11.2 million design, enabling works and build of a new M32 bus only junction and bus lane for South Gloucestershire Council, and civils works for Network Rail on the Wales Route Plan framework which were undertaken on live railway infrastructure. The team also completed the £21 million A138 Chelmer viaduct replacement - a project that was completed at the end of 2016, following the successful delivery of the £9.5 million Tennison Road bridge (pictured above and below) replacement scheme in Croydon on behalf of Network Rail. Graham’s rail division is currently leading the design and build of a project at Marsh Barton where the company has been commissioned to design and build a new railway station on behalf of Devon County Council. In addition, the company is strengthening a railway embankment and retaining wall at Pontypridd, in Wales and

has a design and build contract for the widening of Lea Bridge overbridge in the London Borough of Walthamstow. The team has also recently been appointed to replace the Bellenden and Westdown Road bridges and complete structural works to the existing River Medway bridge on behalf of Network Rail. The installation of new vehicle protection barriers at Reading station have also recently been completed. In fact, over the last 12 months, the company has also been appointed to two major frameworks with Network Rail Wales Route (civil engineering planned works framework) and a five-year London Underground station works improvement programme.

Doing things differently Jonathan knows that there can be no greater testament to the work delivered than positive feedback received from customers. A good example is a recent

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CONCRETE/EARTHWORKS/DRAINAGE

comment from Devon County Council’s chief engineer, Keith Dentith, who stated: “Graham is a fantastic business - a very knowledgeable team and incredibly accommodating. Their prework engagement and planning work so far on the Marsh Barton railway station project has been exemplary and it is clear to see that their wider industry experience and knowledge from other sectors adds huge value. I couldn’t be more pleased with the company’s contribution.” “We try to think, act and behave differently,” Jonathan commented. “We believe that we need to offer support that adds value, coming up with new and innovative ways of doing things and making a profitable difference to our customers”. “I believe that this can be achieved consistently if you work closely with your customers and stakeholders in the planning phases of any project and then maintain that throughout every stage of delivery - working together towards a common objective. In my experience, this will often shape and define the way in which projects are delivered from beginning to end.”

Strong leadership Jonathan is now responsible for providing leadership and direction to the company’s growing rail division. “I believe that by selecting the right people anything is possible and here at Graham I have surrounded myself with strong teams who are hardworking and committed to making a positive difference to the people we serve. “I know that by treating people in the right way we will continue to deliver great customer experience and a sustainable service as a consequence. My aim is to build and sustain momentum. My approach, which is tried and tested over the last 15 years, is based on keeping back office costs low whilst focusing on delivering front line services fantastically well for our growing customer base. “I believe that Graham is a business that offers something very distinct from what already exists. Together, my team and I will approach business growth proactively and opportunistically, unlocking opportunities by offering a memorable, outstanding, unique, service experience and impressing and delighting our customers. Success in one area will lead to success in others and this will enable us to sustain growth. I look forward to our journey together - one which will sustain energy and focus; delivering safely and delivering well to achieve a positive outcome.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Graham is no stranger when it comes to addressing missing links in major projects. The company’s work on the iconic Samuel Beckett Bridge in Dublin was ‘Highly Commended’ at the 2011 BCI Awards while regional stakeholders and industry commentators described its work on the M1/M2/Westlink upgrades in Belfast as “exceptional”. Although the new footbridge and station development at Kenilworth is not the biggest and most challenging of Graham’s projects, the assignment will certainly give the company an opportunity to showcase its experience and expertise within the rail industry.

Kenilworth station was built by the London and Birmingham Railway as part of the construction of the Coventry to Leamington line and opened for passengers on 9 December 1844. The L&BR, which had earlier opened the 112-mile line from Euston station to Birmingham Curzon Street, merged with the Grand Junction Railway and the Manchester and Birmingham Railway in 1846 to create the London and North Western Railway. The Coventry to Leamington line was doubled over most of its length late in the nineteenth century, with only one short section at Gibbet Hill, just outside Kenilworth, remaining as single track. Kenilworth station was closed in 1965 following the Beeching report, and the line singled apart from a passing loop at Kenilworth and the lines leading into the two remaining stations at Coventry and Royal Leamington Spa. Having remained open for goods, the line close completely in 1969 but was reopened in 1977. However, Kenilworth station remained closed and was demolished shortly afterwards.

Kenilworth station at the end of the nineteenth century. PHOTO: WARWICKSHIRERAILWAYS.COM

Position independent rail solution Visit www.leica-geosystems.com Mobile Sensor Platforms for more information or to request a demo.

Leica SiTrack:One Continuous rail capture Leica SiTrack:One enables fast and continuous rail infrastructure reality capture, providing highly accurate 3D data, from rail gauge to 360 clearances. With no stop-and-starts and calibration done on site, personnel are off the tracks quicker. Tightly coupled inertial components automatically position without GNSS.

Leica Geosystems AG leica-geosystems.com

FEATURE

PETER STANTON

PHOTO: INSIDE OUT

A dream becomes reality

n the early hours of Sunday 3 September 2017, a long-held ambition to reinstate a demolished Great Central Railway bridge across the Midland main line at Loughborough took a major step forward as the two main beams of a new bridge were installed after overnight works by contractors.

There are many heritage railways in the UK; some small and some with a very strong presence. One thing they all have in common is very strong support from volunteers, usually supported by some paid professionals. Some of the heritage railways also offer more than just a nostalgic or scenic trip by contributing to the general development of railways in the UK. One such is the Great Central, effectively occupying the East Midlands’ remainder of the Great Central Railway main line to London. It was closed as a through route to London in 1966, although the stretch between Nottingham and Rugby didn’t close to passengers until 1969.

In two parts The Great Central main line crossed the Midland Railway’s main line just south of Loughborough station on a two track overbridge. On final closure of much of the line, two bridges and a length of embankment were removed to avoid the maintenance liabilities of crossing the busy Midland route and the two parts of the Great Central were severed, seemingly for ever. The northern part of the route survived to serve the Ministry of Defence depot at Ruddington and eventually a new

access to that freight-only segment was constructed as a chord from the Midland main line. A group of enthusiasts was determined to keep the line alive for the running of main line locomotives. The Main Line Preservation Group was formed to begin the mammoth task of preservation and restoration and, in 1971, the Main Line Steam Trust was formed and registered as a charity in order to raise funds through covenants. Following that, the Great Central Railway (1976) Ltd was formed to raise funds through the sale of shares.

This early development eventually led to the current situation. Volunteers and staff have re-instated a double track section from Loughborough Central to Rothley and opened a single track to Leicester North, having restored the infrastructure on that section. For the northern section, the existence of freight traffic to the British Gypsum’s works helped keep the line alive and a similar effort by the volunteers of Great Central Railway - Nottingham (GCRN) ensured the survival of that part of the route. The two, effectively separate, railways continued to function as heritage routes, though the southern part also began to develop itself as a commercial test track, able to offer double track 75mph facilities with a level of access not available on the national system. However, the two ‘sides’ were committed to linking back up. This meant that the five hundred missing metres of track between them needed to be rebuilt, a project that became known as ‘Bridging the Gap’.

PHOTO: INSIDE OUT

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

PHOTO: GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY

FEATURE

Planning the connection The end result will be eighteen miles of comparatively high-speed main-line heritage railway. This will give heritage locomotives a chance to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stretch their legsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as well as allow suppliers to the modern railway to test their equipment under relevant conditions. Despite the government announcing work to electrify the Midland main line north of Kettering has been currently stopped, Network Rail is still assisting the heritage line in building the critical new bridge. A redundant bridge, replaced during the remodelling of Reading station, was donated to the cause. Originally planned to span the Midland main line, this will now be used as part of the approach to provide access to local facilities and reduce the vibration impact on local properties. As a result, a brand new bridge would be needed for the main deck. But before that could happen, much work was needed. The project is being managed by FJD Construction of St. Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Square in Birmingham on behalf of the Great Central Railway and work has taken place in collaboration with Network Rail which has supported the project and monitored the work to ensure there is no disruption to the main line operation.

Contractors MPB have been on site since February 2017, constructing the abutments and preparing the site for this historic event. MPB Structures, formed in 1987, is a privately owned company, working on reinforced concrete suband superstructure packages in the civil engineering and rail sectors.

Meanwhile, Moore Steel of Peterborough manufactured the bridge deck and delivered the sections to site shortly before installation work was due to commence. A 1,000 tonne crane arrived on site on 24 August, transported in sections and assembled on site in preparation for the bridge installation.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

PHOTO: FJD CONSTRUCTION

Finally, all was ready. On the night of Saturday 2 September, in a moment many have campaigned for decades to see, a 1,000 tonne crane installed two steel beams across the concrete abutments. The operation to lower the beams started as soon as possession of the Midland main line was granted by Network Rail, at approximately 23:00, and work continued throughout the night to be completed by 07:00 when the trains started operating again on the main line beneath. The project is, without doubt, one of the most ambitious civil engineering projects undertaken by a heritage railway. When the whole project is complete, the combined eighteen-mile heritage railway, stretching across the East Midlands, will create jobs and drive regeneration through tourism. At a cost of £2.5 million, this element of the ‘Bridging the Gap’ project is the most complex and has taken a number of years to complete. Funding was provided through a combination of donations from GCR and GCRN supporters, a £1 million grant from the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) and £250,000-worth of shares purchased by Leicestershire County Council. Several members of staff from Network Rail also freely gave their time to the communityled scheme.

Plaudits Nick Pulley, chair of the LLEP said: “The LLEP Growth Deal has been extremely successful for the Leicester and Leicestershire area and we are really excited by this unique project which supports the creation of an 18-mile mainline railway. The GCR project will open up significant commercial and tourism opportunities to increase visitors

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

by 60,000 per year. In fact, this is the biggest investment in a heritage railway in the UK.” GCR’s CEO, Richard Patching, commented: “This is an exciting night for the Great Central Railway. For over 40 years, our supporters and friends have dreamt of work starting on the reunification of the line. We hope to continue raising funds to complete the project and finally join the two railways. “We would like to thank our many supporters who have enabled us to get to this stage.” Phil Stanway, director of GCRN, added: “As this first phase of the reunification project reaches an exciting climax, what was once deemed nothing more than a dream moves one step closer. The bridge installation is testimony to all who have contributed so far.” With the beams in position, attention will move to the next phase of the gap project, construction of the new bridge deck and the rail link that will also give the southern half of the Great Central access to the national network. In turn, this will mean excursion trains can access the planned new Heritage Lottery funded rail museum to be built in Leicester. Rail Engineer will be keeping an eye on the project to join the existing half of the line through to the new bridge. Two rail bridge beams (ex-Reading) have already been sourced and await installation, while reinstatement of the bulldozed embankment will also need to be dealt with. There will need to be a

significant remodelling of the locomotive maintenance area, which currently sits on the old main line Great Central track alignment. At the south end of the line, by the site of the old Belgrave and Birstall station, there are well-developed proposals for a heritage centre that will form a heritage trail next to the National Space Centre and the historic pumping station in Leicester City.

Testing for today The railway is helped in its financing by the provision of test facilities to the rail industry. The available line is eight miles long, with shallow gradients and gentle curves. It can handle the biggest loads at high speed and allows testing at speeds of up to 75mph in a realistic, safe, and confidential environment. The route includes double and single track, over- and under-bridges and a viaduct, so vehicle interfaces with other rolling stock and infrastructure can be observed. Four stations, a sixty-foot turntable, sheds and comprehensive mechanical signalling complete the picture. Clients include Network Rail and many leading designers of rolling stock. Companies are also using the railway for training. Trainees could not experience a better outdoor classroom, allowing a real operating experience while apprentices can get their ‘boots on ballast’ for handson lessons in maintenance and design. The Great Central has much to offer, and will have a lot more once it finishes ‘Bridging the Gap’.

FEATURE

DELIVERING THE DREAM Expertise in: • Project Management • Outside Party Contract Agreements • Network Rail Asset Protection • CEM / CRE Services

DESIGNING THE DREAM Expertise in: • Civils Design • Temporary Works Design • BIM Level 2 • Principal Designer

www.fjdconsulting.co.uk www.fjdconstruction.co.uk

FJD Half Page RE October 2017.indd 2

25/09/2017 14:09

CAPABILITY, EXPERIENCE, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD

With 30 years’ experience, principal contractor MPB has the capacity to work in all areas of railway civil engineering and has gained a solid reputation for delivering complex projects within possessions.

WWW.MPB.CO.UK

MPB is one of the UK’s leading premier concrete frame specialists and continues to grow year on year through improvements to safety, quality and performance.

OUR OFFICES MIDLANDS 01536 264100 info@mpb.co.uk

LONDON 020 7554 8864 info@mpb.co.uk

NORTHERN 0161 631 2740 info@mpb.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

Lighter and brighter Citadel station roof is transformed

STUART MARSH

arlisle Citadel station is an architectural gem. Originally opened in 1847 to serve both the Lancashire and Carlisle Railway and the Caledonian Railway, it replaced several smaller stations located around the city. Being located close to the border of England and Scotland, this elegant station, even today, forms an important hub on the West Coast main line.

tie. They supported slender cantilever half-truss hooped beams running parallel to the tracks at approximately 3.7-metre centres. The entire roof was glazed using shingled panes.

Cut backs The station buildings have an interesting and complicated history one that over the years has included some structural problems. Now, major refurbishment works are in progress that will rejuvenate the station’s ailing roof and, at the same time, greatly improve the platform ambience. Constructed in a mixture of neo-Tudor and neo-Gothic styles, the station was rebuilt and enlarged in 1878-80 after the Midland Railway’s network reached the Border City via the Settle and Carlisle line. The architect was Sir William Tite, who designed many early railway stations in Britain and France, as well as the Royal Exchange in London.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The 1880 extensions to Citadel station created an elaborate building with a 400foot frontage. It eventually served seven different railway companies, each of which had their own booking and parcels offices and passenger facilities. To complement Tite’s work, engineers Blyth and Cunningham of Edinburgh designed a seven-acre (2.83 hectare) iron and glass roof with giant screens at each end that featured ornate wooden glazing bars in a Gothic style. The roof structure comprised 26 deeplattice (double Warren) trusses spanning the platforms and tracks at 12.2 metre centres. Each girder had ten panels, stiffened end posts and a flat bottom

After neglect during World War II and afterwards, the whole roof began to fall into dilapidation so, in 1957, a decision was taken to reduce its area and repair what remained. The screens at each end were demolished, as was a large area of roof on the southwestern side of the station. At the same time, the original shingled glass panes were replaced by much larger ‘Patent Glazing’ panels. Today, the station and its roof are nonetheless impressive. Grade II* listed since 1972, the roof still sports a 50-metre clear span. By 2014, it had become clear that intervention was again required, with the roof failing and becoming

FEATURE something of a liability. Investigation of the structure indicated that the steel roof trusses had sagged. This was blamed on a combination of age and the radical shortening of the existing roof span in 1957. The effects on the existing rigid glazing system and the roof drainage were severe, causing ponding of rainwater, leakage and the cracking and breakage of multiple glazing panels. Indeed, areas of the roof had been netted following falls of glass onto the station platforms. Access to the roof for repairs and cleaning had been restricted due to safety concerns. As a result, the glazing was in a filthy condition, which limited the light levels on the platforms below. Compounding this, the station’s lighting system was also sub-standard, resulting in light levels at the platforms being in the region of just 100 lux - equivalent to a very dark overcast day. Clearly, it was time for some serious remedial action.

Sensitive The challenge for Network Rail’s appointed design consultant Arcadis, with support from architect Jefferson Sheard, was to provide a sensitive yet contemporary roof replacement that would preserve the original architectural aesthetic. Vital, too, was the proviso that the repair works should cause no disruption to the ongoing rail and passenger activity below. Network Rail and its consultants have worked closely with Historic England and Carlisle City Council in order to plan the refurbishment whilst, at the same time, protecting the station’s listed building status. Separate listed building consents have been required for alterations to the roof itself, for new lighting and for the inclusion of holding-down anchors - of which more later.

Industrial Coating Services applies a 2-pack epoxy base coat. Foiled The chosen solution is centred upon the use of ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) foil sheets and aluminium framing. Manufactured by Vector Foiltec and marketed under the Texlon® brand name, this fluorine-based co-polymer material exhibits high corrosion resistance and strength over a wide temperature range. As well as being much lighter than glass, it offers greater light transmission and is shatterproof. Key to ETFE’s use as a roofing and glazing material, it can be stretched (by up to three times) and it will remain taught even if some variation in size occurs, such as by thermal expansion. Being related to PTFE, it also has a non-stick surface, which means that it is self-cleaning. Although the Texlon® ETFE system has been available for over thirty-five years, its adoption for use on Network Rail structures has been relatively recent. Notable examples include Birmingham New Street station and the Manchester Victoria station concourse, as well as smaller schemes such as the footbridge at Newport and the Underground station at London Heathrow Terminal 5.

Other high profile applications within the UK include the Eden Project in Cornwall and the National Space Centre in Leicester. A £19.5 million two-phase programme of work commenced on 30 November 2015 to reconstruct the damaged roof and to rebuild the station’s eight platforms. The first phase included repairs to the roof trusses and replacement of the glazing at a cost of £12.5 million. The task undertaken by Network Rail’s appointed main contractor Galliford Try has not been a simple one.

Decked Network Rail and Galliford Try have worked closely with Virgin Trains, which manages the station, to plan the work and minimise its impact on station users. The improvements have been made possible thanks to a huge scaffolding access deck which has been installed nine metres above the tracks through the station. As well as protecting the station’s platforms and running lines, it has provided safe access for the workforce. With the glass removed from the roof, this waterproof deck has also kept the station platforms dry. Installation of the scaffolding and deck structures was, in itself, a significant feat of engineering. Covering an area equivalent to one and a half football pitches, it was estimated to weigh some 1,400 tonnes. Spanning four tracks of the West Coast main line and two bay platforms, each electrified at 25kV, it presented an installation challenge that took nine months to complete. De-energising the OLE to allow the scaffolding installation work to be undertaken was initially restricted to just a four-hour time window each Saturday night. Although later extended to weekly six-hour slots, this restriction necessitated careful planning in order to maximise

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE Citadel’s new roof system is projected to have a lifespan of at least fifty years. It’s also reckoned to be resistant to Carlisle’s troublesome seagulls. Apparently, it’s not unknown for these mischievous birds to drop stones from great heights.

Revealed

1400 tonnes of scaffolding was erected with and around the station roof. progress. For instance, cassette beams were pre-constructed and then slid across the tracks, suspended during this process from tensioned steel cables. With the scaffolding and crash deck finally in place by November 2016, work could begin on removal of the 1950s Patent Glazing. North West Recycling Ltd, based at Kingmoor Park, Carlisle, has recycled most of the 114 tonnes of glass that was recovered from the roof. It has been used in the manufacture of window glass and beer bottles. Once the glass was out of the way, repairs could then be undertaken on the iron and steel structure of the roof. This has included extra bracing and the addition of 4,000 metres of new steel purlins. Repainting of the repaired roof structure was sub-contracted to Industrial Coating Services using International Paints Interseal 670HS two-pack epoxy paint as a three layer system. The cosmetic top coat, Interthane 990 Gloss, is of a rich slate grey colour, replacing the previous creamy yellow finish, which had not stood the test of time very well.

Tension The single-ply ETFE foil has been installed in the form of 10x5 metre extruded sheets, each with a thickness of just 250 microns. In all, some 10,512 square metres of ETFE has been fitted by Vector Foiltec’s own engineers. The installation technique includes a clever tensioning process. Each sheet is welded around its perimeter to a strip of foil folded over a ‘Keder’ rod. This perimeter assembly provides the means of structural connection between the ETFE panel and the aluminium perimeter framing.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Vertical mullions, spaced along the panels, have a concave surface onto which convex mullion caps are clamped, sandwiching the ETFE foil and thus tensioning it. At Carlisle Citadel, the 10-metre-long panels have fifteen such mullions, each of which has the effect of tensioning the foil by 3mm, giving 45mm of tensioning across its span. With the Vector Foiltec ETFE system being just one-third the weight of conventional glazing, engineering calculations revealed that a freak gust of wind could possibly lift off the Citadel station roof! Highly unlikely as this might be, it has been necessary to mitigate the risk by attaching fourteen holding-down anchors to the roof structure. Each anchor comprises a block of magnetite concrete, which is around 60 per cent denser than normal concrete, of up to 4.3 cubic metres (around 17 tonnes). Twelve of these anchors are buried below platform level and attached to the roof by vertical steel rods. At two locations, OLE foundations prevented burial, so the anchor blocks are discretely visible.

Forming phase two of the project, plans to upgrade and resurface the station platforms have been rescheduled in order to accommodate the repainting of the metalwork. Surprisingly, this repaint, which so vividly enhances the appearance of the new roof, did not originally form part of the project. Network Rail has been quite right in including it. Dates for phase two are yet to be confirmed by Network Rail, but it seems likely that this £4.5 million second phase, which will be undertaken by Story Contracting, will commence in February 2018. As the roof works near completion, the scaffolding has been gradually removed from the centre point of the station outwards. Just as if a giant curtain were being drawn back, the clear and bright new roof has been slowly revealed. New LED lighting completes the effect. Chris Atkins, scheme project manager at Network Rail, said: “Passengers are really beginning to see the transformation of Carlisle station as a result of this work. The rejuvenated roof will mean a brighter, more airy and cleaner environment which will enhance the station’s beautiful features.” This project represents a significant investment into Carlisle. It has not been without its challenges, but the result will be a greatly improved station that will provide a fitting gateway to the historic border city of Carlisle. But just watch out for those pesky seagulls!

galliford try Rail STATIONS

BRIDGES

DEPOTS

CIVIL ENGINEERING

MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING

TELECOMS

Banbury flood alleviation scheme for the Environment Agency.

We bring best value and a ‘one team’ approach to our projects and frameworks. We leave a lasting legacy beyond the design and construction phases taking into consideration our projects’ whole lives, their maintenance and decommissioning stages, community engagement and local employment.

www.gallifordtry.co.uk

FEATURE

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

UNLUCKY

queezed into a narrow and typically Pennine valley to the north of Todmorden is Lydgate Viaduct, an attractive structure comprising 13 spans. It forms part of the Copy Pit route (FHR6), a product of engineer John Hawkshaw, which traverses a geologically challenging landscape to reach Burnley, nine miles away. In doing so, the railway passes through Kitson Wood Tunnel immediately east of the viaduct - and Holme Tunnel, further north, which Amco Rail partly reconstructed on Network Rail’s behalf in 2013-14. That intervention was prompted by a rotational landslip. We’ll recycle that sentence in a moment.

Attractive or not, it’s fair to say William Helliwell was not enamoured by Lydgate Viaduct. Immediately behind and rather overshadowed by it was Naylor Mill, which he owned. As the structure was being erected in the 1840s, Helliwell wrote to the Manchester Courier complaining that “various baulks, scaffolds etc etc so obstruct the light to my mill as to render it impossible for me to continue to run it with advantage either to myself or those in my employ.” Understandably exasperated, he closed the place down. Months earlier, Helliwell had enjoyed temporary respite following the spectacular collapse of ‘Railway Mania’, an unsustainable investment frenzy which saw 272 Parliamentary Acts for new lines passed in 1846 alone. Many of those schemes were fraudulent, flawed or pointless duplications of rival routes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

In October 1847, activity on the ‘Burnley branch’ was halted - along with others being progressed by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway bringing immediate redundancy for the many dozens of masons, carpenters and labourers toiling on the viaduct. Imagine the impact of that in an era before the welfare state. The winter had almost passed before the financial world had calmed sufficiently for work to resume, but with the economy measure that only one line of rails would initially be laid. It carried the inaugural train in November 1849.

A moving experience We tend to forget that the environment around us is alive, even if it tends to move imperceptibly. The steeply-sided Calder valley has been contributing to the engineers’ workload for many years, resulting in the ongoing development of schemes to address a cracked retaining wall at Knott Road - just west of Lydgate Viaduct - and a slipping embankment in Kitson Wood, beyond the adjacent tunnel. Bridge reconstructions are also on the cards. But the viaduct itself exhibits the most eye-catching defects, not least because the main road runs right past it. Movement of the structure was recorded between 1925 and 1934, as a consequence of which diagonal fractures developed in the western abutment’s curved wing wall. The parapet end on the north (Down) side was pushed inwards so the track alignment now includes a short transition length to ensure structure gauge clearance; a 20mph speed restriction has been imposed on the Down line. And then there’s the westernmost arch - Span 13 - which distorted significantly to its south elevation, becoming more Norman than Roman.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

Over the years, remediation has taken place in the form of stitching and pinning, as well as the rebuilding of spandrel walls and parapets. There are mortar â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tell-talesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the wing wall, dating back to the 1930s; several of these are cracked. Investigations from 1949 concluded that the failures were caused by a rotational landslip, with the slip circle rising to the surface beneath a row of cottages. These had been pushed closer to the road and suffered heaving of their floors. It was recommended that material be removed from the north side of the abutment and the toe of the slope loaded to resist further movement. Neither recommendation saw action but the cottages appear to have been demolished between 1956 and 1961. In the Seventies, tie bars and a steel frame were installed within Span 13, wedged around the arch barrel with bullhead rail laggings and supported by stepped concrete foundations at the foot of the pier and abutment. Twenty years ago, four more tie bars were inserted above Pier 12 to restrain a large bulge in the south-side spandrel wall.

Hide and seek In 2005, a detailed examination of Lydgate Viaduct found it to be in generally fair condition, although no confined space survey was undertaken of its voided spandrels. This was progressed six years later in advance of the five-month blockade to facilitate the works at Holme Tunnel, together with investigations to confirm ballast depth and deck construction. Using a CCTV camera, it was observed that - above Pier 12 - four voids contained loose debris (soil and stones) whilst a fifth,

on the south side, was partly infilled with concrete. The Yorkstone roof slabs had fractured, settling into the small space below where they were resting on the fill material. On the abutment side of Span 13, the voided chambers had similar characteristics but most of the roof slabs remained intact. The arch itself was found to be in poor condition. Although Aerocem pressure pointing had taken place in the past - giving the arch face a satisfactory appearance - very little mortar was present within the joints behind. Moreover, the bullhead rail wedges were severely corroded and the uppermost tie bar had broken. Very shallow ballast depth was recorded above the crown due to the distorted arch profile, resulting in the Up line sitting 100mm higher than the Down. It was clear therefore that the time had come for a more substantive intervention, progressed during the current Control Period. PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

The north elevation of Span 13.

The western end of the Down-side parapet (near-left) has been pushed towards the track. (Inset) Concrete telltales in the abutment wall describe the development of a crack over many decades.

Although some ground investigation data had been archived from previous studies of the hillside above the viaduct, Hyder Consulting (now Arcadis) commissioned BAM Ritchies and Datum Monitoring Services to conduct new investigations in 2014. These would inform the design and give advance warning of any ground movement. The work involved the installation of an inclinometer within a 150mm diameter borehole sunk in rough ground on the north side of Span 13. The borehole log recorded medium/high cobble content, with soft-to-firm clay overlying sand to a depth of 5.5 metres. Below this, firm-tostiff clay was encountered, becoming stiff at 16 metres and recovered as sandstone gravel/cobbles from 19.5 metres to 21 metres. Ten sensors were provided to continuously monitor rotational movement within the wing wall, arch barrel and inner faces of the pier and abutment, whilst two further sensors check for crack propagation in the wing wall. All indications suggest that the viaduct is now stable, with only cyclical and seasonal movement.

FEATURE

Stones and boulders were encountered during auger piling, resulting in the method being changed to an Odex system. PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

J Murphy & Sons inherited the project as part of its Network Rail structures framework agreement, awarded at the start of CP5. The firm appointed Tony Gee & Partners as its design consultant. The optioneering process was complicated somewhat by the viaductâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grade II listing. Amongst the approaches considered was the infilling of Span 13 with lightweight concrete - creating a voided, cellular structure - but this was ruled out because of loading implications. Instead, it was agreed that a sprayed concrete arch would be applied, springing off in-situ concrete walls and supported by capped piles.

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

Pint pot

Towards its eastern end, the viaduct straddles three roadways and a watercourse, with several buildings in close proximity. The western half crosses tree-covered rough ground that rises to the north-west. Running on the south side - just eight metres from the base of Pier 9 - is the main Todmorden-Burnley road. So space was at a premium and made all the more challenging by the six-metre change in levels between the highway and the 70m2 work area below Span 13,

where all the key activity was focussed. Programming, therefore, had to mostly follow a linear progression. Enabling activity began on site in November 2016, with the setting-up of a compound on a narrow strip of land across the road. On site, conditions were initially very wet, with water emerging from below the displaced section of wing wall. The situation was improved greatly by putting stone down and creating a new drain. The immediate priority was to add weight to the toe of the embankment, preventing further movement; this involved clearing the vegetation, allowing excavations within which a gabion retaining wall was built. Thereafter,

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

the existing slopes were benched, a berm installed and the ground regraded to form a route up to where a piling mat would be established. Access was also provided along the north side of the viaduct. With wagons bringing in several hundred tonnes of material, regular contact was needed with the local authority to agree appropriate traffic management measures.

Hit and miss The intention was to begin the main strengthening phase in January 2017, after the earthworks had consolidated, but a three-week delay was incurred due to local authority recovery works following flash floods. Van Elle was sub-contracted to fulfil both the piling design and installation, which called for a 4x5 array of piles, each 18 metres deep and 450mm in diameter. On top of these, a nominal 650mm thick cap was to be cast, stepping up in three sections from south to north. An auger machine was used at the outset, but consistently refused at a depth of 5-7 metres due to boulders being encountered, probably tipped there when a nearby cutting was first excavated. The methodology was then changed to an Odex rotary percussive system; however this was limited to 232mm diameter with a sacrificial case. To account for this, the pile depth was increased to 22 metres and the concrete fill around the inserted rebar cage changed to a grout. An additional pile had to be sunk at the critical north-west corner due to the failure of No.1 pile which twisted and then refused at around 18 metres. Completion of the piling took about two months.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

With the concrete poured for the pile cap, attention turned to the splay walls against the pier and abutment faces. It was originally anticipated that the necessary shuttering would be outsourced to a specialist contractor using an off-the-shelf system, but this proved impractical because of its cost and complexity. Instead, the design and assembly was delivered by Murphy’s in-house temporary works team. Due to the shape of the splay and the quantity of rebar, neither a conventional concrete pour sequence nor the use of vibrating pokers was possible, instead driving the choice of a self-compacting concrete.

Spray that again The spraycrete works to the arch undertaken by Gunform - were generally progressed during the day, but with the initial critical elements programmed for overnight midweek possessions. These were also utilised by Ropetech Access Solutions for de-vegetation work, crack stitching and repointing in hard-to-reach parts of the structure. Despite its poor condition, Network Rail was understandably reluctant to remove any of the existing steelwork in case this caused instability. However, its surfaces were cleaned and prepared, and general repairs undertaken to the surrounding masonry. It was then encased in a nominal 100mm regulating layer of sprayed concrete, holes drilled to allow the fixing of starter bars and a waterproofing membrane applied. The main structural barrel was sprayed in layers of 75mm, allowing each one to gain a strength of 30N/mm² before progress was made with the next. The overall

PHOTO: FOUR BY THREE

(Above) Concrete is poured for the abutment wall. (Inset) The regulating layer of sprayed concrete being applied. minimum depth is 475mm, with rebar added in two stages. On top of this - to improve the finish - is a 25mm flash coat. On the south elevation, listed building consent required the application of stone cladding to soften the concrete’s visual impact. However, on the north side and inner faces, it has been left exposed to allow the structure’s evolution to be seen. Earthworks improvement formed the concluding part of the project, dismantling the upper section of gabion wall after creating another berm in front of it. The whole embankment was then regraded rising at 27 degrees from the road - and new toe drainage provided. After nine months’ implementation, and many more in development, the all-in cost to Network Rail has been £1.2 million. That might seem a chunky sum for one concrete arch, but there’s so much more going on here that the casual observer simply can’t see. You can bet, though, that William Helliwell is looking down and quietly chuckling to himself. Thanks to Mark Billington and Chris Atkins from Network Rail, and Murphy’s Dave Copson, for their help with this article.

Redi-Rock modular retaining wall system .....with the look of natural stone!

Rail Products

Build Faster Build Leaner Build Greener Build Quality Build Smarter Build to Last

1066kg

Download BIM and free Redi-Rockâ&#x201E;˘ design software at www.cpm-group.com

Dry laid one tonne large interlocking concrete blocks Extremely fast and easy to install Can be built in any weather Standard blocks.... no waste Produced from 40% recycled materials 100 year design life Gravity and reinforced earth walls available Designed in accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004 Installation support or full installation service available Full design service supported by professional indemnity insurance

Now available in three natural finishes... Ledgestone

Cobblestone

Limestone

To find out more see our website or call our sales team.

T: 01179 814500 F: 01179 814511 E: sales@cpm-group.com www.redi-rock.com www.cpm-group.com

Concrete for Life

FEATURE

good

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

It’s all

down to

planning

n the face of it, Network Rail didn’t have a bad Christmas in 2014. 11,000 people were deployed to work on 2,000 sites around the country, with 314 out of 322 projects handed back on time. That’s a

97.5 per cent success rate - better than the 95 per cent that was anticipated.

So only eight projects overran. However, and it’s a big ‘however’, two of those eight were at King’s Cross and Paddington stations. King’s Cross was closed for an extra day, and the contingency plan to use Finsbury Park went wrong for several reasons (see issue 142, February 2015), resulting in overcrowding, confusion and exasperated passengers. Paddington, which should have been handed back at 07:00 on 2 January, wasn’t finished until 13:14 that day. The result? More overcrowding, confusion and exasperation.

Political fall-out Questions were asked in Parliament and Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne demanded a full report be on his desk on Monday 12 January. Wednesday 14 January, Carne and colleague Robin Gisby, who had been the director on call over the holiday period, appeared in front of the Commons Select Committee. Then, to cap it all, Infrastructure Projects managing director Dr Francis Paonessa, the author of Mark Carne’s report, and who had only been with Network Rail for a few months, had Rail Engineer come to his office to ask what happened - the first press organisation to do so.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

As it turned out, Francis was both transparent and informative. He detailed all the reasons for the overruns, explained how they happened and what mistakes had been made, and pledged to improve things for next time. “At the end of the day, the railway is here for passengers. It’s not here to be a railway,” Francis Paonessa affirmed. “It’s here to transport people around and we must put their needs and requirements first.” “It shouldn’t matter to the passenger how we’re making sure that they’re not disrupted, whether it’s through guaranteed delivery plans or excellent service, all that matters is that the trains run on time. We need to do what we say we will do which is to deliver an effective railway and make sure that it is there when the passengers need it. That’s our mission, that’s the mission we set out to achieve. It’s one that Mark Carne has said quite clearly that we’re not doing well enough.” “We need to do better and we will do better.”

FEATURE Waterloo woes? Or careful contingency? And they have got better, despite the programme of engineering works at each holiday period getting bigger. While some delays have occurred, overruns have largely been on minor works and can be measured in minutes rather than hours or days. However, the recent August bank holiday demonstrated not only how complex these programmes are, but how easily they can still go wrong. Across the country, the engineering works were the largest ever undertaken over an August bank holiday, costing £130 million and involving 17,000 staff. It included the culmination of three and a half weeks of work at London Waterloo, Britain’s busiest station, where 1,000 engineers and track staff worked 24 hours a day to deliver one of the largest and most complex upgrades at the station in a century. Unfortunately, the work at Waterloo overran by two hours owing to safety critical work to test the signalling taking slightly longer than planned in the final hours of the programme (explained elsewhere in this issue). In itself, a two-hour overrun after 180,000 manhours of work had been carried out doesn’t sound too serious, but it affected trains and passengers throughout the day. However, communications were better, keeping passengers informed, and there was nothing like the disruption that occurred two years earlier. External benchmarking indicates that this perceived progress is not purely subjective. Aspire Europe recently completed an independent review of 400 project companies around the world and concluded Network Rail Infrastructure Projects is in the top 10 per cent of project delivery organisations globally and is the world leader in the global transport sector. The review highlighted a “stark improvement in performance” today compared to the systems and processes used in 2014. The report noted that “the results have demonstrated an exceptional level of improvement for a large organisation” and that, in two measures, infrastructure projects has set the new international benchmark. Works are also being delivered more safely, with workforce injuries reduced by nearly 40 per cent in the three years to 2017. So what has changed? Rail Engineer retraced its steps to Dr Paonessa’s office, now relocated to Euston from King’s Cross, to ask him.

Setting the scene To understand the legacy of some of the issues, it is necessary to go back to Christmas 2007. A blockade of the West Coast main line at Rugby had been planned as part of the route modernisation programme. It was originally planned that this should be handed back after 30 December 2007, though an extra day’s extension was requested As it happened, the possession overran further, until 4 January 2008. The subsequent ORR’s report concluded: “there is still work to do to put adequate plans in place to handle passengers and freight affected by the possessions and to develop contingency plans.” Whilst this bears striking similarity to comments made after Christmas 2014, Network Rail had improved its procedures in the interim. A new Delivering Work Within Possessions procedure was put in place under which every project was assessed to make sure there was at least a 90 per cent chance that it would be delivered on time. Key blockades, which could badly affect the network, had to exceed 95 per cent. Both King’s Cross and Paddington had exceeded that 95 per cent target for completion on schedule, but they still were not returned on time. And the effects were damaging for Network Rail’s reputation. “I think we’d all agree that having a 90 per cent success rate of our major possessions would just be completely untenable at any bank holiday, and Christmas 2014 really underpinned that,” Dr Paonessa commented. “At the same time, costs are obviously really important, so we can’t guarantee hand-back 100 per cent by being super-conservative in our delivery or we could never afford to get anything done. It’s a fine and complex balancing act.” Therefore, the task was to maximise the work done during a blockade, without building in too much cushion, while still handing back on time.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE Contingency planning A railway is all about its passengers, as Francis had affirmed back in January 2015. So that was where he started: “We looked particularly at the operational contingency plan, which is very much route-led with the train operators. If we’re going to end up in an overrun position, what are the series of mitigations that we can put in place for the passengers?” The idea is to have a strong contingency plan, or plans, which can be brought forward if the project gets into trouble. For example, these might be to get the Fast lines back up and running, so buying the project a bit more time to finish off the Slow lines. The operational plan is then built up from the contingency plan, putting the interests of the passengers first rather than those of the engineers. But the aim still has to be to get all the work done on time. “If you only ask one question, which is ‘What’s the likelihood of getting the full scope back on time?’ you tend to be very conservative in the work scope,” Dr Paonessa explained. “Instead, we ask ourselves two questions now. ‘What’s the likelihood of getting all the work handed back?’ and ‘If we can build in some pieces of work towards the end that we could curtail, then what’s the likelihood of being able to hand all the work back?’ “By taking that approach, we can accept a lower percentage for the ‘handing it all back’ versus the ‘guaranteeing being able to hand it back’ by just structuring the way we do the work. Typically, we lose about half a per cent of the planned work in mitigations which, considering the scale of the work that we deliver, is really good.” It seems to be working. There have been no significant overruns (excepting the two hours at Waterloo) on any bank holiday for the last two and a half years.

“It has made a huge difference,” Francis stated. “We can, at a very early stage, get the route control managers involved in the process. Frequently, they can facilitate the involvement of their own staff and quite often will get several operational teams to come and support hand-back activities. We’re also then fully integrated - our Route Services and Supply Chain teams sit adjacent to each other in Milton Keynes, so any knock-ons to drivers, locos, tampers can all be arranged in a very timely and consistent way.” “Importantly, my project teams aren’t making decisions on the ground that aren’t supported by the external infrastructure and backed up by project contingency plans. We have also put in place mechanisms and people outside of the project to challenge, and hence counter, the natural optimism bias that you have when you are working hard on the job.” So now, if the project team is tempted to say: “Yes, we’re a bit behind but we’ll catch up,” there’s an external person who can ask why they think that, what plans do they have to make it happen, and what happens if the team gets to a point of no return? Project teams are no longer able to pass a key halt point, as they did at King’s Cross and Finsbury Park, without the approval of a third party. Due to the amount of work going on, one of the big problems at Christmas and other key holiday periods is the scarcity of resources. That doesn’t just include machinery and the workers on track, it also includes the drivers of the engineering trains that keep the sites supplied. Now, spare drivers are employed, a small price to pay compared with the cost and reputational damage caused by a major overrun. “If you can’t move the tampers at the end of the day, if you can’t move the locos, if you start running out of drivers for resource vehicles on a work site which is totally dependent on them, you’re suddenly in big trouble,” Dr Paonessa stressed. “Now we’ve got an agreement with the freight companies that any of the drivers can drive any of the locos, so if we need to shuffle them round site, we can do that.”

Resources and access

One truth There has also been improved communications. The project teams report to Route Control and thence senior management and key stakeholders. From there, the communications team disseminates what is happening - when, where and, crucially, why - to the press and the public. So there is consistency and the message is accurate and timely. As well as keeping passengers informed, this single message is crucial if there are problems to solve.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

A perennial discussion point is whether Christmas, and the other bank holidays, is the best time to do major work, or whether it would be better done throughout the year. Resources would be more available and, perhaps, the weather would be better. “We’d like to have longer periods where things are closed down to give us full access to the railway, but we also know that the passenger disruption that this causes is really significant,” was Francis Paonessa’s response. “So we entered into CP5 with an assumption, as part of our business plan, that we would get 25 per cent more access than we did in CP4. As it turns out, I think in Year 1 we ended up with 16 per cent less.” Less? “Less. In year two -14 per cent less. This year I think we have 11 per cent less access than we had in CP4. And, more importantly, we’ve seen a 40 per cent reduction in 24-hour plus possessions and a 50 per cent increase in the number of less than eighthour possessions. A great proportion of the access we have is now made up of very short periods of time - in fact our average possession that’s less than eight hours is only 5 hours and 30 minutes. So, not only has the quantity of the access changed, but the mix of it has changed significantly.” This is an unfortunate by-product of having such a successful railway. Late trains are popular, early trains are popular, so operators are unwilling to give them up to facilitate engineering

FEATURE Major projects

works, squeezing the time that Network Rail can get on track. Bank holidays, when on average 40 per cent fewer people travel by train, are still the obvious solution. “There are some jobs that can only be done in three or four day blocks,” Francis added, “and they can only therefore be done at Christmas and the major bank holidays. Getting a three-day block of the West Coast at any other time of the year would be impossible.” “However, it’s worth remembering that, on average, we’re delivering £130 million of major renewals and enhancements every week. So, whilst the bank holidays and other points in time where we tend to have the longer blocks represent a very visible peak, they are still a relatively small proportion of our total delivery in the year.”

MMUN LECO ICA TE TI – O L O

ERFORM G–P AN LIN C AL N

TOMATION – AU SIG – S N

ASPECT Singapore

Don’t forget ...

book your ASPECT 2017 place before

1 November irse.info/aspect

2017

While Network Rail seems to have largely fixed its problems with Bank Holiday overruns, there are still other areas to improve. For example, Great Western Electrification and Sheffield TramTrain are both running late and over budget. In contrast, projects such as the Ordsall chord in Manchester and Norton Bridge in Staffordshire are successfully being managed through alliance partnerships. Does this mean that alliances are the way forward? Statistics show that, when Network Rail is working in alliance with its contractors, costs are being held to within 1.3 per cent of budget, but Dr Paonessa warned against jumping to conclusions. “When you look at that, you’d say: ‘Having an alliance is a really good way of managing cost control,’ and it is, but I think it’s the wrong conclusion. Because, if you look at what is needed to be able to set up an alliance, you have to have a very clearly defined scope, you need to have worked out the options and have the opportunity to really cost it. Only then can you set up an alliance because, at that point, commercial partners will be prepared to take those commercial risks. “So what that really says is that projects that work well are ones where we spend about twice as long in development as we do in delivery. Where we’ve seen the large cost increases tends to be when commitments in time and cost are made against very early estimates. It was one of the key things that came out of the National Audit Office report on Great Western, and very similarly on Sheffield tram-train. So, I’d say that our delivery capability is excellent when the scope and access are properly pinned down.” That’s borne out by a study the Department for Transport undertook with University College London (UCL) last year to look at optimism bias in early GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment

Photo anekoho/Shutterstock

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

IPMENT – CON QU TR –E

FEATURE

Projects - an eight-stage process) phases. It concluded that cost estimates made at the GRIP 1 stage (output definition) tended to be 66 per cent optimistic, 40 per cent at GRIP 2 (feasibility) and 17 per cent at GRIP 3 (option selection). With a five-year Control Period cycle, plus two years in its preparation, some projects are being costed up to seven years before they are built, when they are still in the early GRIP stages and optimism is rife. Post GRIP 4 (single option development), when the options are much clearer, Network Rail is working within three per cent of budget. So, it seems that the problem lies with being forced to estimate costs at an early stage of a project, which is just what happens under the current control period funding. At the start of CP5, 80 per cent of the projects hadn’t been finalised, yet they were all costed. “It is very challenging to manage within a finite cap when you’ve got inherent levels of uncertainty built into the work that you’re doing,” Francis Paonessa commented. “You only need to reflect back on the UCL work to say that those uncertainties are very, very real. “I think that the key point, and the bit we’ve been working with the Department to get built into the process, is what we call a ‘final investment decision’. This means that we don’t commit financially, and to delivery times, against projects until we actually know what they are and what they’re going to cost. That’s a discipline which we’d really like to see built into the next control period. “How that gets funded is a different question, but it would certainly be recommended in our Enhancement and Improvement Programme that there is a final investment decision when we get to the end of somewhere around GRIP 3 or 4, depending on what’s appropriate for the project. Then we’ll say, ‘Right, we’ve now got a very high level of certainty, we’re about to move into a delivery phase so we’ve got much greater certainty of access as well, we know it’s going to cost this, it’s going to take this long, do you still want to buy it?” In the recent High-Level Output Specification (HLOS) for England and Wales, the DfT has indeed noted that “the Statement does not commit to infrastructure enhancements. These are expected to be dealt with separately.” It therefore looks as though major projects won’t, in future, be part of the control period system but will be costed and timetabled individually, at the appropriate time and when all the facts are known.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Hansford Review Last month’s Rail Engineer (issue 155, September 2017) outlined the main conclusions of the Hansford Review and included comments from its author, Professor Peter Hansford. Although the review focussed heavily on investment, it also set out the benefits of private-sector competition for Network Rail. In addition, the report made some practical suggestions for Network Rail to consider. These included creating a new service level agreement that establishes the terms of business between Network Rail and third parties. It also said that there should be a single point of contact within Network Rail to simplify the process. Asked about his view of the possibility of third party investment and delivery - and, in the latter case, the competition this could bring to his organisation - Francis responded positively: “In some respects it’s difficult not having anyone to compete with as we have no benchmark to measure ourselves against and be compared with. The analogy I’ve typically used is of Usain Bolt running the 100 metres - how do we know how fast he is running without having a competitor to reference his performance?”

Safety However a project is delivered, to budget or not, on time or late, everyone acknowledges that it has to be delivered safely. Francis was cautiously upbeat about this. “The year before last, we managed a reduction of 26 per cent in our lost time injury frequency rate, last year another 16 per cent and this year we’re already on track to hit our target of 10 per cent. “I personally find it very difficult to set a target that isn’t zero, in relation to injuring people. But, at the same time, you have to recognise where you are and where you’re moving to and to set challenging but realistic targets. And if you think that only five per cent or so of the labour that’s in those hours is directly controlled by Network Rail - the other 95 per cent is in our contracting community - I think you really have to recognise the large efforts that have been made by our supply chain to deliver these figures.” “The biggest single influence on safety is planning, and we can see a very, very clear correlation in the data between safety and performance. So, at those times when we do our best planning, which tend to be the bank holidays, we’ve seen the lowest losttime injury frequency rate, which typically can be a third to a half less than our moving annual average.” So, as well as Christmas work now being better controlled in terms of time, budget and contingency, it’s also safer. And that’s a Christmas present we’d all want.

Subscribe to our free publications at www.railsubs.com

www.rail-media.com

FEATURE

Digital Railway Realism It’s not just about technology

CLIVE KESSELL

he term Digital Railway has certainly caught the rail industry’s imagination, yet prospective users and suppliers still have

diverse and widespread views as to what it really means.

Network Rail coined the term back in 2015 and produced an ambitious plan to introduce digital technology in virtually every one of its many activities (issue 132, October 2015). Whilst conceptually correct, it lacked realism as to how it could be delivered or financed and a more pragmatic view has since emerged with the appointment of David Waboso as the Digital Railway leader. He has set out three broadly defined objectives focussed on capacity, performance and safety (issue 147, January 2017). Having established the Network Rail vision, one supplier’s view on achieving this was given by Alstom, which foresees a much greater involvement by the supply industry in the design, provision and maintenance of the resulting systems, including provision of finance through some kind of joint partnership (issue 150, April 2017). Although in some ways attractive, there are minefields of commercial, operational, safety and personnel matters to be overcome, all of which will take time, tact and patience to achieve a workable solution, let alone getting the buy in of the wider supply chain. It seemed appropriate to get another opinion from industry, so Rail Engineer went to global engineering and technology giant Thales. As well as transport, the company serves the

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

aerospace, defence and security sectors, providing the technology that enables two out of three flights around the world to take off and land safely, and a founding member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance for building Britain’s two new ‘big ships’. In transport, Thales employs over 8,000 people globally, including 1,200 in the UK, who work to deliver solutions that transform Britain’s journeys - the vision of the business today. The Thales view of the Digital Railway is one of pragmatism, with targeted intervention into the technology, but also recognising the need to address the cultural and behavioural challenges necessary for successful implementation and benefits realisation. David Palmer, who heads up the main line business within Transport, told Rail Engineer more about it.

Programme for change The rail industry is enjoying unprecedented growth in the passenger sector, and digital technology can offer much needed capacity gains and performance improvements. David Palmer commented: “To realise that potential, we

must embrace and sustain a collaborative, industry-wide approach, where suppliers and operators of infrastructure and train equipment can together maximise the benefits of digital systems to deliver a much bigger and quicker impact to the passenger journey experience, thus ensuring rail can compete effectively with other transport modes. “Yes, technology is important in the Digital Railway vision, but changing people’s attitude to establish a culture of cross-industry teamwork and collaboration, is essential to achieve the potential. “In Thales, we talk about an ‘Olympic mindset’. For London 2012, the transport industry worked, without any contractual or commercial arrangement, to ensure the transport network, both in London and at Olympic venues all over the country, delivered success on the world stage. True collaboration made that happen, and we need that spirit and commitment to the rail industry”. Thales would wish to promote this vision and build on examples from where it is already happening.

Lisbon Operational Control Centre, Portugal.

FEATURE Increasing capacity In the Metro environment, the introduction of the Thales Seltrac CBTC system to the Jubilee and Northern lines and DLR, (also the forthcoming 4LM - the ‘four lines moderniation’ of the sub surface lines), has enabled signalling systems to give much greater train throughput and thus increased passenger capacity - 20 per cent on the Northern line, over 30 per cent on the Jubilee and expected up to 65 per cent on parts of the 4LM. “The key to these successful deliveries is the collaborative, ‘one team’ approach that we developed in partnership with London Underground,” said David. Tube passengers and operators are benefitting from modern digital technology that also yields improved safety and reliability. Equipping ERTMS/ETCS to main line railways that form the core links between the UK’s cities will hopefully yield the same benefits and is seen by many as the principal element of the Digital Railway. It is also, probably, the hardest to implement, as there are huge challenges with the integration into existing signalling systems, with the fitting of rolling stock being particularly challenging from a logistics perspective. Thales has been active in ETCS development since its earliest days and has provided Level 2 systems in Austria, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, as well as being a main contractor in the Danish Railways nationwide rollout. The position in the UK is complicated, with continuing uncertainty on the routes and timescales for deployment. Becoming more certain is rolling stock fitment, where Thales has an on-board unit readily available with the approval process well advanced. The company has been selected as the preferred supplier

Testing for 4LM.

Gotthard South Tunnel Control Centre (Pollegio Operation Centre).

for ETCS’s OBU Retrofit package 1 (class 43) under the ERTMS rollout programme. Funded by Network Rail and managed by the National Joint ROSCO Project (NJRP), it forms part of the UK’s Digital Railway vision that will help to deliver additional route capacity in the UK. Thales is mobilising to deliver the ‘first in class’ and subsequent fleet fitting. Like many others, Thales sees merit in the development of ERTMS Level 3, including the proposed ETCS Hybrid L3 where some existing track circuits or axle counters are retained to detect non L3 fitted trains (issue 151, May 2017). ProRail and Network Rail are collaborating to demonstrate the benefits of ETCS Hybrid L3 and Thales is optimistic of being engaged along with other suppliers in order to help build this confidence. It is anticipated that a demonstration at the UK ENIF test site near Hertford will take place in 2017.

Traffic management systems Achieving capacity gains and minimising disruption by optimised management of pinch points and route conflictions through the use of traffic management techniques, was envisaged as a quick win when three proprietary systems were evaluated in 2014. Following this initial analysis, Thales was awarded contracts to equip the Romford and Cardiff ROCs with TMS using ARAMIS (Advanced Railway Automation, Management and Information System), integrated to the Siemens Westcad-E Signalling control system. Whilst other traffic management projects have now begun in the UK, the deployments in Romford and Cardiff have meant both the customer and supplier working together, sharing the goal of how best to introduce new technology, including significant but valuable lessons on integrating into the UK network.

Areas of concern have been the lack of source records for the signalling areas, the nuances of the UK network compared to how operations are run overseas, the significant increase in functionality (particularly around interfaces to conventional systems), and the complication of implementing TMS at the same time as major re-signalling work. Working collaboratively to address these challenges has been important, but extra time has been needed to plan in detail the migration from the current operational processes to the new way of working. Traffic Management has to be technology-based, but key to success will be operator interaction with the system, human factors, appropriate training and stakeholder engagement, all of which need significant attention. The ARAMIS TM system is a fully modular solution that is designed for full integration with the signalling, enabling routes to be set (or cancelled) automatically, dependent on the real-time acquisition of information from timetable, train describer, interlockings, radio block centres and other sources. At both Romford and Cardiff, the system is however being implemented incrementally. Thales is using lessons learned in other countries with the system being initially deployed in Operational Decision Support mode. This gives screenbased advice to the signallers, but entrusts them with the final route setting. Both control centres will have this operational by the end of 2017, the Romford one being applied to the Upminster control centre for the C2C service to Southend. Full integration at Romford ROC will follow in due course. The benefits of TMS, however, go beyond decision support to operators in signalling centres. Integrating TM to

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE the passenger information systems such as Darwin and online journey planning systems will improve the accuracy of the information provided, particularly important to the traveller at times of disruption. As David Palmer comments “TMS has been slower to take off in the UK than perhaps originally envisaged, but the collaboration between the Digital Railway team and the supply chain through the early contractor involvement activity makes future investment look more assured”

Improving reliability and performance Predict and prevent asset monitoring and analytics is now featuring in most operator’s digital railway strategy and drives significant benefit with reduced inservice failures, maintenance interventions and costs. The ultimate goal is to eradicate delays and cancellations caused by faulty or ageing infrastructure and to reduce the need for people to repair assets on the tracks during operational hours. By foreseeing when an asset is trending towards failure, the workforce can repair or replace it when the railway is paused for the night, thus benefitting safety conditions for trackside workers. Remote Condition Monitoring (RCM) has been around for some time, with many operators making good use of it. Thales has provided Network Rail with RCM and Intelligent Infrastructure systems and services since 2008 that now monitor over 43,000 assets. Thales’s next generation product, Eclipse, is specifically developed to provide decision support and predictive maintenance services for rail operators and maintainers, building on its existing solutions but also embracing the maturing RCM market. Leveraging EU joint funded asset research and utilising the latest cloud based platform, Eclipse delivers an asset condition and performance advisory service which will enable rail infrastructure managers to have an ISO 13374 compliant system for prognostic and advisory asset information. The Thales vision for Eclipse is “to realise a railway where asset failures are not service affecting and all maintenance interventions are planned”. Being standards-based, it is vendor asset agnostic and incorporates a security module that ensures asset owners retain full control of their data to enable big-data analysis of complex data challenges that rail operators currently face.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

London Underground Jubilee line control centre.

“Eclipse has given Thales a platform for knowledge transfer amongst its employees,” said David Palmer. “The project scope has required many skill sets to come together. Graduates and apprentices fresh from college or university know how to manipulate data to give usable and concise information, but have limited knowledge on how it should be meaningfully interpreted. Combining this with the experience of seasoned engineers brings recognition to the criticality of the equipment being assessed, thus adding to the value of the team.”

Improving passenger experience Getting accurate and consistent trainrunning and journey-planning information out to both front line rail staff and the passenger remains an ever present challenge and is regularly criticised in the media when things go wrong. The Darwin system has existed since 2009, with earlier systems in use before that. The objective is to collect train-running information from a variety of sources and continually compare this information to the intended timetable. Algorithms then assess the impact of outof-course running and make the results available to station information systems and online travel information apps across the nation. Thales has been the developer of the Darwin project and continues to manage the system architecture and performance from its Cheadle premises, which specialises in delivery of advanced decision support systems and integration. The system is continually evolving and the company works closely with the Rail Delivery Group to improve the provision of accurate, consistent and timely customer information. Although online information is increasingly important to mobile and tablet users, observing the platform indicator or hearing the announcement at the station is the final confirmation that people actually need to feel in

control and informed about their journey. The technology associated with station equipment has vastly improved over the years, but has it reached an optimum? Thales thinks not and its digital, scalable APIS (Advanced Passenger Information System), with the ability to deliver audible and visual content, has been developed to provide airport style information at rail stations. It is already deployed overseas and Thales intend bringing it to the UK in due course.

Digital transport Digital technology clearly exists and is not the barrier to the transformation opportunity the rail industry is facing. The imperative is working in a truly collaborative way to achieve the vision of the Digital Railway, with passenger and freight customer satisfaction being key. Thales believes that the main challenge the industry faces is to embrace the transformational change that technology enables, and creating the right collaborative “Olympic mindset” at the core of project development and delivery. One cannot leave a discussion with Thales on the Digital Railway without mention of the cyber threat that a digital environment brings. Thales has a strong pedigree in measures to combat security breaches, and investment continues to stay ahead of emerging threats - perhaps a subject for another article. This article has concentrated on the Digital Railway but Thales sees digital systems being applicable to many other forms of transport. It has a punchline “Great Journeys Start Here”’ - so transfer of technology between different sectors makes business sense. The Network Rail vision for the Digital Railway is viewed as realistic and Thales is part of making this vision a reality. Thanks to David Palmer and others in Thales for openly sharing their views.

“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

FEATURE

And The Next Challenge is...

t its annual Luncheon in MALCOLM DOBELL March each year, the chair of the Railway Division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers announces his or her successor, who is always a senior railway engineer. This person presides over the Division’s events for a year. The two key events for the chair are his or her address to the Railway Division Centres around the UK, in Ireland and, most recently, in India, and the speech to more than 1,000 guests at the Annual Luncheon. Rail Engineer covered the former, given in the grand lecture hall of the Institution’s HQ. The chair for 2017/8 is Richard McClean, managing director of Grand Central, one of the open access train operators. In his address, “Ensuring The Relevance Of Rail In A Changing Environment”, he outlined his experience, the plans for his year in the driving seat and some of the challenges that the railway industry and the engineering profession face.

Richard McClean (left) with 2016/17 chairman Richard East.

A personal reflection Richard is a product of the 1982 intake of British Rail-sponsored engineering trainees, doing his M Eng degree whilst undertaking practical training during the vacations (in days gone by we might call it a “premium apprenticeship”). Even as an undergraduate, he got stuck into a wide range of activities from night shifts at Bounds Green Depot to helping to evaluate tenders for the Class 91 locomotives. Following graduation, he worked at Old Oak Common depot investigating problems with Class 50 locomotives, trying to understand why they were suffering from broken connecting rods and burnt out electronics, all of which were resolved by persistent investigation back to root cause and involved keeping the lubricating oil in good condition and avoiding iron laden brake dust being sucked into the electronics. This was part of his plan to gain wide experience, something Richard was keen to advocate to today’s young engineers.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Later, Richard was depot engineer at Marylebone in the late 1980s, which was then the holder of the “misery line” tag, and there were proposals to close Marylebone station and convert the lines into a coach way. As we all know, total route modernisation was the way forward and it gave Richard the chance to work with other disciplines (track, signalling, operations) as part of an integrated project team. He said they didn’t get it all right as his Chiltern colleagues (Grand Central and Chiltern are both part of the Arriva group) often remind him! Following a short spell at Wimbledon depot, Richard was seconded to the office of the BR chairman - the second Bob Reid. (Today we think of the chairman of Network Rail as a big job. Back then, the chairman of BR was in charge of the former equivalents of Network Rail, all the TOCs, all the FOCs, the ROSCOs and many of the engineering consultancies - a really big job). The chairman told Richard that his experience at Shell had taught him that engineers need support in their business education. So Richard found himself removed from oil samples and endoscopes and was “answering phone calls from irate MPs as they travelled on trains with no air-conditioning” and “explaining to the Secretary of State for Transport that it isn’t possible to speak to the chairman when he was on a train on the West Highland Line” (days of analogue mobile phones). He also wrote the BR Board meeting minutes. Richard had a ring side seat as the structures of the privatised rail industry were developed and, as a result, decided to work in passenger train operations and took up a role with the London Tilbury and Southend railway, as c2c was then known. By this time, it was this route that held the “Misery Line” label. The work he did to specify their new trains led to the successful Electrostar series. A move to the north reacquainted Richard with the Class 91 fleet and with the smell of hot, dirty and burnt electronics he had first observed with the class 50s. He led a successful reengineering project integrating the efforts of a “coalition of the willing”; the maintainers, the original designers BREL (now Bombardier) and GECAlsthom (now Alstom), and the commercial imperatives of operator GNER and owner Eversholt. He also experienced how quickly success can turn into tragedy as at Hatfield in 2000.

FEATURE

“So all of that helps explain why I am a rail engineer. The ability to work with detailed processes, awesome plant and great people means you can never be bored, while putting your customer, the passenger, on the production line means that you can never let your attention wander”, he said. This is something all former Railway Division chairs (your writer included) would support. To conclude his career summary, Richard contributed an operator’s perspective to parts of the original specification for the replacement for the High Speed Trains and the Class 91 locomotive/mark IV carriages which laid the foundations for the Inter-City Express Programme. He then joined Deutsche Bahn where he was appointed to his current position.

A passion for railways Richard says he is an unashamed railway enthusiast, not in the numbers collecting sense, but in the sense of rail’s advantages - low wheel rail friction, high capacity. “Railways have always shaped and enabled the society we live in”, Richard said, and he highlighted the following: »» The standardisation of time across the nation; »» The invention of the package holiday by Thomas Cook; »» Delivering fresh food into cities with dedicated fish and milk trains - allowing fish and chips to become a national dish rather than just a coastal one; »» Distribution of national newspapers; »» The paperback book; »» Over 300 railway themed pubs; »» Countless “Station Roads”; »» Structural icons - what other industry can boast a designated World Heritage site like the Forth Bridge?

He added: “Even today, railway developments are reshaping the lives of people, the communities they live in and the economies around them,” citing examples including London Overground, the Jubilee line extension and the Borders railway.

Industry objectives He sounded a warning note, however, reminding us that the industry will need to adapt faster than ever to remain relevant, both to respond to developments in other transport modes and to technologies that might eliminate at least some of the need to travel.

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

10 - 12 October 2017 Elmia Centre, Jönköping - Sweden 29 November - 1 December 2017 Makuhari Messe Chiba - Japan

Road Crossings

Road Rail Access

Pedestrian Crossings

Anti-Trespass

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE Engineering challenges

In Richard’s view, from his position leading a train operating company high in the customer satisfaction ratings, the industry needs to address: »» Punctuality - depart on time and arrive on time from the passengers’ departure points right through to their arrival points, not the origin and destination of the train; »» Capacity - a pre-requisite for punctuality, there needs to be space for all who want to use the railway, both passenger and freight; »» Cost - it needs to be affordable; »» Emissions - it would be naïve to assume that the underlying physics of rail will always allow the industry to claim its “green” credentials as other transport modes are rapidly improving. These more or less represent the industry’s 4Cs - Customer, Cost, Capacity and Carbon, although Richard added a fifth point - Connectivity. Rail is usually just one part of a passenger’s journey. “Passengers want full connectivity between the places they want to be, not just between railway stations,” he said. Richard highlighted three of the 12 key capabilities outlined in the Rail Delivery Group’s Rail Technical Strategy where innovation is required: »» Cost effective electrification, stating that “as a matter of the utmost urgency, we must find a way to deliver core network electrification and re-establish our credibility in this area with funders”; »» Decarbonising non-electrified routes - Richard was critical of the current situation, where diesel electric bi-mode trains are favoured, saying that this is not sustainable as he highlighted the inconsistency that Midland main line (MML) electrification was cancelled in the same week that the same government minister announced the policy to end sales of diesel and petrol cars by 2040, by when the future MML diesel electric bi-mode trains will be only at half-life; »» The Digital Railway which, while it has been defined in different ways, Richard highlighted as the following: »» ETCS implemented to allow trains to run closer together; »» Improved performance through better whole-system train regulation traffic management tools and driver advisory systems; »» Lower cost signalling renewal through elimination of lineside signals; »» More effective and lower cost maintenance based on information derived from trainborne and lineside sensors and other data sources.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Richard tacitly accepted that it is unlikely that routes away from the core network would be electrified and he talked about a number of techniques to reduce or eliminate, at point of use, harmful emissions. For example, replacing hydraulic torque converter gearboxes on legacy DMUs with more modern gearboxes that can yield fuel saving of up to 20 per cent while the use of cleaner fuels using ‘gas to liquid’ fuel based on natural gas or ‘dual fuel’ using diesel and LNG mixed can reduce particulate and NOx emissions. Trains fitted with diesel-electric drives, possibly based on the cleanest automotive engines, would use batteries to recover braking energy and allow the diesel engines to be shut off while standing in stations. Another use of high-capacity batteries could allow electric trains to run independently of the electricity supply over a reasonable distance. There are also a number of trials underway using hydrogen fuel cells (issue 145, November 2016). Of course, all these developments need engineers. “We all know that, without the right people, we will get nowhere. But where are these people going to come from?” Richard mused. This is a twofold challenge. Firstly, to make engineering attractive as a career and, secondly, to encourage those who have chosen engineering to specialise in railway engineering.

Year of engineering This is very much the theme for Richard’s year in office, echoing that of IMechE president, Carolyn Griffiths. He asked everyone to contribute to the 2018 UK Year of Engineering, which will “deliver and promote direct and inspiring experiences of modern engineering”. Activities will include events across the UK that challenge stereotypes of engineering and allow families to ‘take a closer look’ at engineering. Institution members and others must work with influential people who care to showcase the variety and creativity of modern engineering and increase their participation in existing engineering programmes that have a proven track record of changing perceptions amongst young people and their influencers. Above all, the Institution needs to develop a brand, PR and digital content to join up all this activity and so extend the campaign and increase its reach.

Alstom iLint hydrogen-powered train is now on trial in germany.

FEATURE

Women in engineering Richard reinforced the president’s message about the gender imbalance in engineering. Just eight per cent of the general engineering profession is female and the proportion in rail is even worse at four per cent. He observed that, at school, “we see that girls achieve better results in GSCE science subjects than boys, but that out-performance is reversed at A Level where girls achieve only 30 per cent of the number of Physics passes - mainly because they don’t continue with the subject”. Which begs the question as to why are fewer girls choosing physics at A Level than boys? The trend continues at university, with seven times more men studying engineering than women. Richard proposed these actions: »» In schools, work needs to be done to encourage girls to study physics at A Level; »» More radically, universities could adjust their entry criteria to reduce the emphasis on maths and physics A Levels - again evidence suggests that this reduces a barrier without diluting the quality of the engineering education they deliver; »» Employers must do much more to communicate the creative and problem-solving aspects of engineering both to school students AND to those who influence their subject and career choices “Why not invite science and maths teachers to your offices and factory?” »» Everyone must also do more to make the workplace more inclusive, both physically and culturally, as such a move would assist with attracting and retaining both sexes to the profession and in rail but, as noted earlier, the industry lags a long way behind the expectations of the current generation.

Relevance in today’s world

The report ‘Engineering 2016’, by Professor John Uff, highlights how the various institutions might work better together and is recommended further reading. Richard reported that the Railway Division is very active and achieves a high degree of engagement with its 5,500 registered professionals through its programmes of activities delivered in London and in seven centres in the UK and in India. These are often reported in Rail Engineer. He also highlighted his enthusiasm for more collaborative working with other professional bodies. The Railway Engineers Forum has been a good start and it now includes the Institution of Railway Operators and the Chartered Institution of Logistics and Transport. This is particularly necessary in railways which are closely coupled systems, involving many engineering disciplines and other professionals. As Richard put it, “we need to get out of our silos and integrate!” More needs to be done, he said, and the division should emulate the success of the Institution of Railway Operators, Young Rail Professionals and Women in Rail, all of whom have achieved significant recognition and success in a short time through their energy and use of social media. Richard concluded with these reflections: “Rail has been pivotal in the building of today’s society, and can be central to the new and emerging world. But, if we are to succeed, we need to change and change fast, engage new generations and work across the traditional boundaries. “This Institution and all of its members and supporters can be the heart of that change and that future success”. Richard McClean’s recommended reading is ‘Engineering 2016’ by Professor John Uff, available online at http://www.raeng.org.uk/ publications/other/uk-engineering-2016.

Moving from the challenges faced by the industry, Richard outlined how the IMechE and the Railway Division should make themselves relevant to society, stakeholders and engineers facing all these challenges. He said that, if not addressed, the declining numbers entering the engineering profession will widen the growing skills gap leading to harm to our economy and society. Actions needed include promoting and explaining the role of engineers in society through the media and with key stakeholders and increasing cooperation with the other professional engineering institutions to reach more potential engineering recruits.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION

Detecting wheel flats RICHARD ROBERTSON

and more!

eaves on the line are a common problem, especially in autumn when they can pose a serious challenge for rail operators, causing trains to be delayed and even needing to be taken out of service temporarily. This situation is even worse in countries around the globe with densely forested areas such as North America, Canada, parts of the UK and Europe. To put the problem into context, a mature tree can lose between 10,000 and 50,000 leaves and, each autumn, literally thousands of tonnes of leaves fall onto railway lines across the UK alone. Network Rail, the owner and operator of most of the UK’s rail infrastructure, tries to keep delays to a minimum by keeping trees and vegetation along the track side cut back, as well as deploying ‘leaf busters’ which spray powerful jets of water directly onto the train lines to clear leaves away. Some rail operators even go the extreme of publishing ‘leaf timetables’ in the autumn, which give their trains longer to complete their journeys and also to slow down at stations, helping them to stay on time. But, timetabling aside, why are leaves on the line such a problem for rail operators and what new innovations are out there to provide solutions?

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Wheel flats Leaves on the line make rails slippery and cause trains to experience reduced adhesion. This can lead to wheel slip when the train is taking power, and wheel slide when the train is braking. Although large strides have been made in the development of better Wheel Slide Protection (WSP) systems for trains, these can only optimise the prevailing wheel rail adhesion. WSP systems attempt to protect the wheels on the train during a stop, but rapid transition from slippery rail to dry rail and back can sometimes result in flats being created on wheels during braking. The flat spot occurs when a rail vehicle’s wheelset is dragged along the rail after the wheel/axle has stopped rotating. Flat spots are usually caused by use of the emergency brake, or slip

and slide conditions that cause wheels to lock up while the train is still moving. Flat spots are more common in the autumn and winter when the rails are slippery, but can also be caused by faulty brakes or wheelset bearings. Once these flats are created, they provide the characteristic ‘thumpthump-thump’ that can be heard by rail passengers during autumn as the damaged wheels impact the hard rails beneath them. The sound is generated as the edges of the wheel flat impact on the rail, but, as the sharp corners of the flat are worn away over time, the noise reduces, making human detection difficult. If the flat spot is very small, the rail vehicle will be able to continue being used. The fault is removed later in the wheelset turning process. However, because of the heat suffered while being dragged along the rail and the impacts suffered afterward, these wheels are more likely to break due to changes in the alloy structure. If the flat spot is very large, strands of molten metal may have got stuck on one side of the flat spot, making it impossible for the wheel to turn due to insufficient clearance between the rolling surface and the brake block. In this case, the wheelset must be replaced immediately. In extreme cases, a wheel with an untreated flat spot can damage the track and cause a derailment. Otherwise smooth but ‘out of round’ wheels generate ever more force as the train gets faster until the forces become very damaging to the rails. At their extreme, these forces can be large enough to break rails which already have small cracks or defects in them.

INNOVATION Metro-North Railroad in New York A good example of an extreme situation caused by a wheel flat is with Metro-North Railroad in New York, where a flat generated so much ‘out of balance’ force in its axle that the axle broke, sending the wheel into the Hudson River. The consequence could clearly have been considerably worse as the trains travel on a viaduct through Manhattan on their way to Grand Central Terminal. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) therefore mandated that Metro-North should do regular visual inspections of its wheels. This is no easy task as it represents a total of 13 miles of tread surface to be inspected for defects daily! Instead of implementing the visual check approach, Metro-North chose a significantly more efficient, Automatic Inspection System (AIS) in the form of WheelChex®, which consists of 32 Vortok MultiSensors™ in each of four tracks in the Park Avenue Tunnel under Manhattan; a total of 128 sensors per installation. Unlike traditional AIS that use bonded strain gauges, which are difficult to install and require high maintenance, the Vortok sensors are embedded in the rails and form an array which measures the force profile of each wheel as it passes over the system. This force profile is used to determine the roundness and smoothness of each wheel by monitoring the mean weight and peak force (from impacts) of the wheels. A good measure of the wheel condition is to compute the ratio of mean to peak load and express this as a simple number. Anything above a ratio of two is noteworthy and is passed to train maintainers, and anything above five is an emergency, which sees the train stopped as soon as it is safe to do so. This information, combined with analysis of the wheel data, has allowed Metro-North to instigate a wheel management system that allows wheel flats to be measured early and then to track the condition of any wheel damage over time.

Hot wheel and bearing detection The WheelChex system, powered by Vortok sensors, has been so reliable for Metro-North that the company, in partnership with LongIsland Railroad, put out a Request for Proposal for the construction and delivery of three ‘Train Fault Detector’ (TFD) houses to build on the original implementation, adding hot wheel and bearing detection, along with enhanced data analysis. Vortok International won this contract and combined the existing WheelChex technology with Progress Rail’s hot bearing and wheel detection systems to create a ‘first’ in the US rail transit industry in combining these measurements into one location. This innovative TFD system provides a comprehensive overview of wheel and axle condition and will allow the railroads to benefit from operational information in the form of messages and alerts to tell them if a particular vehicle is presenting a risk to the infrastructure. With new trending algorithms it will be possible to plan ahead and avoid some of the panic that happens when the leaves fall in autumn, when most wheel damage occurs. Innovation in this sector has led to solutions that not only overcome the original, obvious problems, like wheel flats in autumn, but also tackle complex issues such as hot wheel and bearing detection. With statistical data from the TFD, the railroads will also be in a stronger position to plan material purchases and benefit from better pricing and lead times. It will be exciting to see where this technology goes from here. Richard Robertson is managing director of Vortok International.

◆ service ◆ commitment ◆ quality ◆

Experts in...

Consult

Signalling Telecoms Transmission Data & IP, FTNx Power DC & AC/UPS Operational Telecoms Radio & Mobile Passenger Information Telecoms Training CCTV & Security SCADA Management Public Address Civils & Structural Rolling Stock Engineering

Design Integrate Install Commission Optimise Support Train & Upskill

For more information... Call 01724 292200 Email info@alandickcomms.com Visit www.alandickcomms.com Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION

EAST WEST RAIL and TroPath

PAUL DARLINGTON

unning alongside the railway, cable troughs are not just a tidy and convenient receptacle for signalling and power cables. Their lids also often provide a walkway but, with the strong possibility of encountering missing or broken lids in some areas, they can be anything but a ‘safe walkway’, especially at night. Rail Engineer has reported on the development and installation of cable routes made from recycled materials a number of times. Several suppliers offer such products, but it is believed that Trojan Services is the only UK supplier of locally produced products using UK-sourced raw materials and production of recycled polymer. Now, Trojan Services has developed an enhancement of its successful combined cable route and safe walkway for the second phase of the East West Rail project, which aims to establish a strategic railway connecting East Anglia with Central, Southern and Western England.

Range development In 2002, Trojan began researching the use of recycled polymers for railway cable ducting as an alternative to traditional concrete. At that time, less than a quarter of plastic waste produced in the UK was recycled, the bulk of which was packaging materials. However, since then, the raw material stream from industry and society has been increased to include end-of-life products, as well as domestic and industrial waste. Trojan identified that the most suitable polymer for rail applications was polypropylene, due to its high strength and impact resistance. The result was the TroTrof range, approximately five times lighter than concrete troughs. The range was later enhanced with a combined cable route and safe walkway that has been used on a number of rail enhancement schemes, and which has contributed to safety and sustainability of the materials used by rail. This is known as the TroTred product. East West Rail ran a ‘troughing challenge’ to select an innovative cable troughing system that would meet its ‘next generation railway’ requirements by combining the welfare of workers along with environmental and sustainable elements. Trojan was successful in the challenge and the result is TroPath, a derivation of the existing TroTred product. TroPath will offer the rail industry an even lighter-weight, durable and long-lasting cable trough and safe walking route.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION

It has health and safety as well as life cost benefits compared with traditional concrete products and, when the product reaches end of life, it, in turn, can be recycled. Currently, the Trojan project is gearing up to commence production in 2018.

East West Rail Route The proposed East West Rail route can be broken down into three sections - Western, Central and Eastern. The Western Section route is on existing lines between Bedford and Oxford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale. Phase 1 Oxford to Bicester Village - has already been upgraded by Chiltern Railways and Network Rail. Phase 2 of the Western Section will upgrade and reconstruct existing and mothballed (no longer in use) sections of line that link Bedford with Bicester, and Milton Keynes with Princes Risborough. Once completed passengers and freight services can make the journey between Bedford and Oxford without needing to travel via London. It will also link Milton Keynes on the West Coast Mainline with London Marylebone on the Chiltern Mainline via Aylesbury.

The Central Section will extend the Western Section to Cambridge. The line was closed and dismantled in the 1960s. Many bridges have either been removed or are in a poor state of repair and the Bedford bypass severs the line, so there is extensive work to be done on this section. The railway east of Cambridge, the Eastern Section, is extensively used by freight as well as providing passenger services. An hourly service of passenger trains between Cambridge and Norwich was introduced in September 2002, and one between Ipswich and Cambridge in December 2004.

Specification A specification for the development of line side troughing for the East West Rail Alliance was established with the objective of innovation and continuous improvement in troughing for both East West Rail, UK Railway and beyond. The specification, which was formulated by a multidisciplinary team, concentrated on five key areas:

»» Best value for money »» Safest method or option »» Consistent quality level »» Most sustainable method or option »» Reputational advantage. The specification set qualitative target criteria in 17 areas that covered the behaviours and goals of the project. These included: unit cost, installation cost, time saved, work content reduction, intrinsic safety (Safe by Design), improvement in reliability, and positive reputational impacts on the project and rail in general. The specification required a walking route compliant with standard NR/SP/ OHS/069 issue 2 “Lineside facilities for personal safety”, along with the provision of disconnection box stakes and handrails, together with being able to safely contain all forms of cables. The product design had to enable an operative to install more than 25 troughs per shift under Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, and include features to minimise both the risk of injuries during installation and the exposure of staff to hazardous substances during onsite construction and maintenance. The safety requirements included features to reduce minor injuries during operations from slips, trips and falls, such as lid failures. The solution had to demonstrate consistent quality levels, high durability, a minimum 25-year design life, and compliance with existing troughing product specifications. It needed to be a flexible product range for dealing with obstructions and grade changes by offering different lengths, radiuses and tees.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION The comprehensive specification included a requirement for the lowest possible embodied carbon, emissions, and water usage during manufacture, which should be undertaken by a local workforce using locally sourced materials. Cable protection had to maximise rodent protection while minimising the risk of cable theft - with more than one measure of security per system.

The solution Trojan submitted initial design concepts in accordance with the criteria laid down in the specification. These overcame the potential for installation problems associated with the earlier TroTred product, which had led to issues with lid alignment and stability. This was achieved by eliminating the multi-part base configuration of two sidewalls with a centre section slotted together to form the base. Instead, the new TroPath base was made in the form of two half troughs, giving the unit more stability and strength. Likely expansion requirements have been calculated and finite element analysis conducted. Moulds are now being produced to confirm the physical characteristics of TroPath, after which the new product will be tested in accordance with Network Rail standards prior to full-scale trackside testing to ensure compliance. TroPath offers a weight reduction compared to TroTred due to the sidewall reducing from 350mm to 200mm, as less cable capacity is required for the EWR project. This will also save a considerable amount of raw material and illustrates how important it is for projects to specify requirements as accurately as possible in order to save costs by not overengineering the product. The installation time will be reduced as there is no need for assembly of the base unit on site, resulting in improved productivity/installation rates, and reduced potential for accidents associated with manual handling. Trojan has also evaluated and introduced a new raw material supplier which offers improved performance of a lower weight per unit whilst maintaining the same physical characteristics. Workforce training will be reduced due to the elimination of on-site assembly and this, together with easier installation of TroPath, will result in lower installation times compared to existing products. Delivery costs could be reduced as well. Trojan is evaluating the elimination of

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

wooden or plastic pallets as well as removing the need for shrink wrapping which is currently used with existing pallet deliveries.

Ricardo Rail assessment Ricardo Rail was remitted to undertake an independent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the TroTrof and TroPath products, and to compare TroTrof with a conventional concrete trough and TroPath with a concrete trough and a track-side walkway. This included an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for each product. The conclusion was that the Trojan products out-performed the concretebased alternatives for every environmental criterion studied, for all life cycle stages. The results took no account of product lifetimes; however, it is anticipated that the Trojan products may last for the entire project lifetime (120 years), whereas a concrete alternative would need two replacements.

Award success In June 2017, TroPath was awarded ‘Best Recycled Product’ at the National Recycling Awards event. The judges commented: “A simply amazing product it delivers everything you’d want in a best recycled product. Mile after mile of this product will be installed along railways

across the world, we have no doubt. There are no similar products on the market, with the standard practice being the installation of concrete troughing and a separate walkway made from wooden batons, membrane and packed type-one aggregate” Trojan has always appreciated the positive reaction and adoption by Network Rail of its innovative solutions to cable trough/walkway management issues, and the acknowledgement of the benefits delivered by awarding Trojan the Innovation and Environment Partnership Award in 2008 and 2010. The company also welcomes the new generation of designers and project managers who are embracing Trojan’s approach to product innovation and design.

Trojan Services Ltd formed an alliance with Trackwork Ltd. in June 2017 - TroTrack Composites. TroTrack will combine the innovation of the Trojan team with the established rail industry experience of Trackwork to deliver existing and new recycled polymer products in the U.K. ■ British designed and British manufactured ■ Over 1 million units supplied and installed in the UK infrastructure ■ Manufactured using 100% recycled polymer from end of life vehicles

■ Significantly lighter than the equivalent Concrete Troughing, to comply with HSE manual handling regulations ■ In Network Rail Ergonomics study, TroTrof C1/9 was installed over 4 times quicker than concrete equivalent ■ Units are designed to interface with concrete equivalent troughing ■ Products offer excellent impact resistance, quality and durability ■ Products are driven by innovation, environment and sustainability TM

Sales/General: +44 845 074 0407 Email: info@trojan-services.com www.trojan-services.com

INNOVATION

CLIVE KESSELL

dison succeeded in making his light bulb work, eventually. It is often quoted that, on his path to success, he discovered 10,000 ways not to make a light bulb. Perseverance, then, won the day.

But, in the modern commercial world, constraints upon research budgets and resources do not allow for a trial and error approach to developing new concepts. Solutions need to be new and innovative, whilst also thoroughly proven before being implemented. They need to be delivered on time and on budget. Under similar constraints, would Edison ever have reached his working light bulb moment?

light bulbs

Innovate or mitigate? The constant drive to increase safety, improve efficiencies and provide better services creates opposing challenges for engineers. On the one hand, there is pressure to innovate, to embrace new technology and methods to meet today’s demands. On the other hand, when a new technology comes along and it is unproven in the rail environment, the burden of time and cost to test and qualify the product as fit for purpose, or otherwise, may result in true progress being aborted. Innovation can be stifled by the need to mitigate project risks. Then there are the project risks associated with using older, yet proven, technology. Taking the assumed ‘safe route’ will often result in a sub-optimal solution, but is that what is really wanted for systems that are critical to operations, security or safety? Avoiding the innovative solution in favour of an older, established one could also present risks for obsolescence management. While considering something new, assurances will be needed that it will be fit for purpose, without having to invest excessive amounts of valuable resource into detailed evaluations. Consider the case of two technology examples: 1. Communications - Wireless methods have become essential for a range of modern applications and also open up new possibilities. But an average system, that works perfectly well in an open environment, may struggle to perform when introduced to the physical and operational challenges of the railway environment. 2. CCTV - There are many products available that are perfectly acceptable for general surveillance applications, including town centre and retail environments. However, operational and safety critical applications add an entirely different set of demands which cannot be met by many off-the-peg CCTV products.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Many police helicopters are equipped with Vislink’s airborne data link (ADL) systems to deliver high-quality real-time video to officers on the ground. Learning from elsewhere A look at other industries with comparable requirements can de-risk innovation by identifying proven technology that transcends its origins and then applying that to the rail environment. It’s widely accepted that the railway environment poses unique challenges for communications and CCTV technology. How many other industries can you name where systems operate indoors, outdoors, underground and overground, across both urban and rural areas?

INNOVATION Add to this the demand for systems to operate amongst high-voltage power lines and numerous metal structures. Equipment may also be subjected to vibration, shock, or suffer poor ventilation due to installation in confined spaces. In vehicle-based communication systems, one end of a wireless link may be travelling at high speed relative to the other. It’s fair to say that the list of comparable industries is not long. It is possible that many of the challenges faced by rail engineers are also realised by engineers from other industries. If knowledge can be shared, and lessons learned from others outside of the rail environment, then new solutions may be found. But who else shares similar technical challenges? What problems have they encountered, what are their solutions and how can they be accessed?

electric racing cars will already have some insight into several technologies that will change transport in the future. So what exactly does the world of sports broadcasting have to offer rail industry communications and CCTV? Formula E has rapidly gained support from automotive manufacturers including Jaguar, Audi, Renault and Citroen, with Mercedes-Benz set to join the series in 2019. It symbolises a global motorsport shift toward efficient and sustainable energy solutions, developing cutting edge technology with real-world relevance. In addition to wireless broadcast cameras in operation around the circuit, the cars are equipped with on-board camera systems transmitting low-latency, crystal-clear

images from any of four micro-sized highdefinition cameras along with audio and data related to the car’s speed, position and other telemetry. Up to 20 cars can be ‘live’ at any one time. Race speeds of 140mph, near constant acceleration and deceleration, fierce vibration, shock and high temperatures are just a few of the physical conditions these systems must endure. Electric power delivery of 200kW in close proximity to the camera and transmitter systems also has to be taken into account. Are these challenging conditions starting to sound familiar? External factors show more challenges. Formula E races are mostly held on street circuits, adding the complexity of urban

Hiding in plain sight In considering the core applications for these two technology examples, several solutions are hiding in plain sight. Television broadcast offers many examples of high-quality video combined with wireless communications. Followers of the FIA Formula E Championship for all-

Panasonic Jaguar Racing. On-board images from Formula E are broadcast live to over 190 million viewers in more than 100 countries around the world. PHOTOS: PANASONIC JAGUAR RACING

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION

Collaborative solutions Vislink onboard camera systems are used by MotoGP to deliver ultra-high definition (UHD) video plus telemetry whilst travelling at speeds in excess of 200mph. PHOTOS: MOTOGP.COM environments and myriad physical structures to the wireless transmission challenge. All of this must be accomplished using standard-based technology that is interoperable with a huge range of other equipment and also complies with stringent international regulations. Beyond the obvious differences in application, it may be surprising to see the number of parallels to the rail industry. Of course, a sceptic may say: “If motor racing fans can’t see a driver’s camera view, then the race still carries on, but railway operation is totally dependent upon real-time video systems.” That’s true enough. However, from the broadcaster’s perspective, there are no second chances to deliver on-board camera footage in a live scenario. Technical failures, picture degradation or dropouts are considered totally unacceptable. When over 190 million people in over 100 countries around the world are watching and judging the quality of the service being delivered, the commercial pressure is immense. The best picture quality has to be delivered, faultlessly, every time. So whilst the world of motor sports broadcasting is ever keen to push boundaries and adopt the latest technology, is there sufficient proof that this wireless video technology is evolved enough to be used on railways? Absolutely. Formula E has been operating these systems since the beginning of the series three years ago and variations are also in use by MotoGP, World Rally Championship and World Rallycross, plus many other sports and events globally. MotoGP even uses gyroscopically stabilised cameras to remove the ‘tilt’ as riders take corners. In addition, law enforcement and public safety organisations around the world operate long-range airborne data links (ADL) using the same core technology for real-time surveillance. The technology is mature and proven enough to be depended upon under harsh conditions in mission critical applications, and brings the potential to revolutionise video communications in rail applications, including CCTV between trackside assets and moving trains.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Identifying valuable technology developments from other industries is one step toward improving innovation in rail. Building upon what has already been proven mitigates the risks usually associated with being an early-adopter. Collaboration, though, is ultimately the key to successful delivery, ensuring that engineers from each discipline are able to share core knowledge and work as a single team. With this in mind, Vislink, the leading provider of wireless video systems to broadcast, law enforcement and public safety markets, and Panasonic System Solutions Europe, a world leader in intelligent and connected technology solutions, have joined forces in a formal collaboration. This will bring their technical and commercial teams closer together, drawing upon experience from a wider pool of industry applications and enabling them to work on shared projects toward common goals. Carl Pocknell, general manager at Panasonic System Solutions Europe, explained the approach: “Panasonic System Solutions Europe is focused on solving our customer problems in three key areas - critical infrastructure, connected communications and automation. This often involves identifying technology being used in other industries and analysing how it can be applied to our sectors of expertise. In this case, we have combined Panasonic’s innovative CCTV cameras and solution design alongside Vislink’s wireless technology, allowing users to monitor cameras without the delays (latency) that so often affect images in this type of environment.” As an industry striving to continually innovate, collaborative solutions have the power to accelerate innovation or open a doorway to new capabilities. By taking a wider view, and drawing upon developments and experience from other markets, that next ‘light bulb’ moment is brought just a bit closer.

n o i t a v o n n I R ace The

Two industry innovators collaborate to create the ultimate in rail solutions.

Panasonic have combined their innovative CCTV

cameras and solution design with Vislinkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wireless

technology to allow users to monitor cameras in motion, in real-time. In an industry striving to continually innovate, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re paving the way for new possibilities.

To learn more about transport solutions of the future, visit: business.panasonic.co.uk/solutions or www.vislink.com ÂŠ 2017 Integrated Microwave Technology Ltd and Panasonic System Communications Company Europe. All rights reserved.

INNOVATION

Measuring efficiently

nnovation and efficiency are intertwined, and as industry adopts the digital principles mandated by BIM, capturing 3D digital quickly, efficiently and accurately is more important than ever, which is why engineering survey knowledge is so important.

Survey information comes from many sources and with different levels of accuracy but, as track time becomes more limited, it is vital to capture as much data as possible in as short a time scale as is practical. Laser-scanning technology is becoming more and more accepted as it produces very accurate data that can be used by a variety of rail professionals, from asset managers to designers. Because the 3D point-clouds captured by scanners contain points in very close proximity (sometimes just a few millimetres apart), accurate 3D measurements can be made on a computer wherever the engineer needs them in the safety and comfort of their office. 3D point-clouds also form the basis of accurate 3D models used in the BIM environment and allow intelligent software algorithms to be developed to speed up data extraction for objects such as overhead powerlines, vegetation and gantries.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Tunnel profiles A great example of this is a recent tunnel survey undertaken with the Trimble Gedo 2.0 Track Measuring Device (TMD). The Gedo TMD is an upgradeable system for track surveying, setting-out, maintenance and tamping which can have additional sensors such as laser scanners added to it. The area scanned included the tunnel approach as well as a short section beyond and into a second tunnel. Because of the change of cross-section in the tunnel, the client was keen to see how the Gedo system compared to traditional techniques and how easy the information was to process. The Trimble Gedo 2.0 scanning system was used, in conjunction with a tripod-mounted Trimble S9 Robotic Total Station, because of a lack of GNSS reception in the tunnel and the level of accuracy required. In total, the length of the survey was around 650 metres and the S9 Total Station had to be set up five times. The trolley was pushed through at the most precise measuring speed (left) and the

whole process, including safety briefing and accessing the work site, took just under four hours. In comparison, a traditional profiling team on the same contract needed to return at least a further three times, having already had a previous visit, and they would only record one single crosssection every five or ten metres with no detail in between. Processing the data back at the office, including the production of crosssections took around five hours. However, a significant portion of the processing is automatic, so could be performed by the PC in the background. The quality of the data allows the tunnel construction to be clearly seen (above) and the cross-sections can then be created at critical locations as well as at the required regular intervals. This survey was particularly interesting, as not only was the change in tunnel profile accurately surveyed, but the ventilation shafts were precisely measured as well, one of which can be seen on the image above right along

INNOVATION

with the change of tunnel bore (viewed from “outside” the tunnel), something conventional measuring techniques would not reveal.

Back in the office The blue lines shown in the images above are the as-measured existing track geometry (left rail, right rail and centreline). Because the track geometry and pointcloud are measured at the same time, on-site tasks are very efficient and, once

back in the office, automatic processes can be run within the software such as cross-section generation. This allows vectorised cross-sections to be created at any required single or multiple location and rolling stock to be superimposed onto the track to check clearance. These profiles can have dimensions added and can then be exported to other third-party analysis and CAD software. Because the 3D data is correctly geospatially positioned within a co-ordinated reference system, any proposed track realignment can be imported into the software for an updated clearance check without the need to revisit site, further aiding collaboration and improving safety. Furthermore, the data can form the basis of a highly accurate linear BIM model as it can be integrated with other forms of measured 3D data such as terrestrial, mobile and airborne LiDAR as well as 3D CAD drawings and models.

With the recent introduction of the Trimble SX10 Scanning Total Station, point-clouds are being democratised. This revolutionary instrument combines a conventional Robotic 1-person Total Station for conventional surveying and setting-out along with a high-precision 3D laser scanner and multiple metric cameras. This means that, back in the office, measurements can be taken from the images recorded by the instrument as well as the point-cloud it has scanned. Point-clouds and metric images will not only benefit survey and design, but also the planning and delivery of projects. Because the project managers can “visit their site” on a PC, many critical measurements and decisions can be made ahead of time in the office and, with Trimble’s commitment to augmented reality, the benefits of positioning technology to the rail industry will only grow.

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

INNOVATION

ANDY THOMPSON

Practical

Innovation

Generac Dust Suppression Unit at Kings Cross.

hoosing the right specification and equipment is vital. The rail sector is inundated with companies claiming to offer the next innovation and choosing the right product mix to support health and safety requirements can be a complex task.

Every manufacturer strives for innovation, but it should not come at the cost of efficiency and practicality. More and more upgrades are taking place in remote locations, so this means that the plant often has to be self-sufficient and efficient. Equipment used needs to be durable and robust to keep up with the rigours of remote onsite use. Today, new product development is focused on the practicality gains, including how plant can be manoeuvred from A to B and how they can be maintained including refuelling and day-to-day upkeep. This year, there are a number of key innovations and trends entering the rail sector, all of which, the manufacturers claim, will help plan the next rail project.

Growth of LED and Link-Ups All too often, our industry is told that “it’s just a light”, but the truth is that one of the most important reasons for having mobile light is for the wellbeing and safety of workers. Lighting has traditionally been dominated by metal halide lamp heads and, in some European and over-seas markets, these are still being used for lowcost lighting-tower models. However, LED is experiencing explosive growth as the rail sector realises the potential benefits that this style of

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

lighting can bring to site. These include cleaner, sharper and softer light; instant illumination, as the LEDs can be switched on and off without any cooling time whereas metal halide lights require a longer time of cooling before the next hot-restart; and, of course, lower CO2 emissions. Usage is largely being driven by the significant energy cost savings and long lifecycles that are increasingly attractive as rail infrastructure budgets and costings become firmly squeezed. As an example, 60 per cent of Generac’s lighting stock now incorporates LED lamp heads. Many lighting towers today offer variants on LED lamp heads and they are available in a range of configurations. One of the easiest ways to check the power of the lamp head is to look on the lamp itself. In a quest to reduce operational costs further and be greener, link lighting is also an on-trend option for buyers, and LED technology has supported this practice. Link lighting is a popular choice for rail teams as it means having the ability to link several lighting towers from one generator, thus saving fuel costs and reducing emissions on trackside. Up to 12 Generac LINK T3-L light towers can be connected to an external power source with a 32A option, or six to one with a 16A option.

Greater control Coupled with the growth in LED lamp head technology, developments in the control systems which manage lighting are also gathering pace. Dimmer technology has been readily available but, combined with efficient ultrathin LED lamp heads such as the Generac MT1 and LINK T3 UFO, site operators will be able to fully control and dim the lighting from 1-100 per cent. Dimmable switches on mobile lighting towers allow users to control the amount of light they need for specific tasks, reducing running costs while also helping to reduce light pollution. Energy savings are only the start of the potential benefits as controllable lighting promises to create safer working conditions both on track, lineside and in populated areas.

Dust suppression Ballast dust remains a significant problem on many routes, and this can lead to severe health issues and poor visibility when teams are undertaking rail upgrade tasks. Research from Imperial College London suggests that around 900 new cases of lung cancer each year in Britain can be attributed to past exposure to silica dust in the construction, granite and stone industries. Traditional methods have involved rail teams using Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) along with water dousing and exposure monitoring to reduce risk.

INNOVATION However, these practises are often impractical as they take place away from the job site at local distribution centres (LDCs) and are reliant on personnel managing the risk themselves. In addition, many areas where the dust is created are rendered inaccessible for motorised plant. Dust suppression units are a practical solution for many projects, and this year has seen a significant increase in demand. The Generac range of dust suppression units have been used on the Waterloo rail upgrade to prevent platform contamination, improve the passenger environment and help reduce dust pollution to nearby residences. Unlike traditional dust-suppression systems, today’s innovative dust control units provide operators with a range of options based on performance and the size of the area which requires coverage. Modern dust-suppression units use fine mists to capture and combine with dust particles to drag them to the ground. They create nebulised water particles, which have a diameter of 40-150 microns, so they can easily bond with dust particles which have an average size of 80 microns in diameter. Water particles created by a standard irrigation system have a 1,000-1,500 micron diameter and are therefore too big and just go straight through the dust cloud without bonding with anything. The nebulised water system is more effective and sustainable, as the dust can be suppressed quicker, reducing water consumption and preventing muddy work areas created by pools of water from traditional methods. Buyers need to consider where and when the plant will be used trackside and look to practical innovations in their quest to complete projects on time in a safe and constructive environment.

MT1 UFO lighting tower from Generac.

Innovative, robust and eﬃcient products which work through the night and every night, just like you. Stay on Track with

DF7500

½Pag-Rail17_r1_1

GMP-MKT-17

Andy Thompson is a key account manager at Generac Mobile Products

LINK-T3

V20

www.towerlight.co.uk

Generac Mobile Products UK Ltd. 11 Garamonde Drive, Wymbush, Milton Keynes, MK8 8DA Tel: +44 01908 571435

www.towerlight.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

CHRIS PARKER

Leaf fall on the

Underground

ondon Underground (LU). The clue is in the name “underground”. So how does the organisation have a leaffall problem? Despite the “underground” in the name, LU has large lengths of route that lie out in the open rather than down in tunnels. On the Piccadilly line, there are such lengths in the east and west of the route, particularly the latter. As a result, over the last couple of autumns, the Piccadilly line has had serious issues with poor wheel/rail adhesion. This problem peaked last year when the service frequency was affected by the number of trains that were out of commission as a result of wheel flats.

Spinning and sliding When rails are slippery, the trains’ wheels slip when the train driver tries to accelerate, and slide under braking. The former can lead to ‘wheel burns’, damage to the rail head caused by the heat generated by the spinning wheels. When trains slide under braking, the wheels are damaged, potentially leaving a flat spot, and the rail may also be damaged. Those who drive cars will probably have experienced skids, and possibly wheel spin, and may know that modern cars usually have systems to prevent both phenomena. These systems are pretty effective, so why do trains not have similar precautions built into them? Modern rolling stock does, of course, but older trains, such as the Piccadilly’s 1973 stock, may not, and those that do may have systems that are not as effective as those of road vehicles. It is a lot trickier to deal with the issue when wheel and rail are both made of steel than it is when the tyre is rubber and has a tread pattern designed to remove water and other contaminants from the road surface. Wheel flats are a problem for several reasons. They are noisy and cause vibration, and at best this is uncomfortable for passengers and irritating for neighbours. The vibrations cause damage to the trains, which may be significant in the case of bad flats. They also damage the track, and in extreme cases, may cause rail breaks. For these reasons, LU has to withdraw vehicles from service when wheel flats become sufficiently serious. Damaged wheelsets may be repaired by turning them on a wheel lathe in one of LU’s depots, restoring them to the

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE correct round shape. In more severe cases, though, or if they have been turned before and have lost too much metal to be turned again, wheelsets may need to be replaced with new ones. There are two depots with wheel lathes on the Piccadilly line. However, during the leaf-fall season in 2016, the number of vehicles requiring attention exceeded the capacity of these to such a degree that it became necessary, on some days, to curtail train services on the line.

Plan for improvement Something needed to be done, and before the next leaf-fall season in 2017. LU commissioned Xanta, a specialist rail consultancy, to examine the causes and recommend potential strategies to prevent recurrence. Xanta’s David Crawley, who has had many years of rail experience, carried out the necessary review and produced the report.

The recommended strategy entailed several strands of work. Managing lineside vegetation to minimise the leaf-fall impact on the line was one. Working with train drivers to learn which they knew to be the worst problem locations was a second. This element also needed to include work to improve drivers’ appreciation of the problem and how to drive to minimise it. Modifying the wheel/rail interface conditions to improve adhesion was a third strand. It was decided to modify the timetable during the leaf-fall season to ensure a reduction in the risk of slips and slides. Lastly, to reinforce the work with drivers, signs were to be erected on the lineside at poor adhesion sites. It was also recognised that all of these measures could only reduce the problem, and would not eliminate it entirely. It was therefore recommended that resources at

the two maintenance train depots should be enhanced to enable them to cope more effectively with wheelset damage during the leaf-fall season. Additional staff were to be recruited and trained so that the depots could operate 24/7 train lifting facilities during the problem period. In addition, more spare wheelsets were to be procured, so that there would be a greater supply on hand should large numbers need changing in a short period of time. Dave White, LU’s programme lead for the project, told Rail Engineer that all of these recommendations, which were in line with current best practice in the industry (at Network Rail and on the Metropolitan line for example), were accepted and have been implemented through a project with a £6.5 million budget. He described how this has been done in an interview with the magazine.

RATs on the line The most obvious sign will be the two RATs - not scary rodents, but rail adhesion trains - that, from late September, will be running on the Piccadilly line’s above-ground sections. One, based at

Satiate dispenser.

RATs will operate from Northfields and Cockfosters to treat the openair sections of the line (highlighted). The section from Barons Court to Acton Town, although in the open, does not give adhesion trouble. Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

FEATURE

Cockfosters, will work on the eastern end of the line and the other, run from Northfields, on the western. Each carries 250 litres of adhesion modifier that is spread on the rail head in the areas that are at risk, working in a similar fashion to the Sandite trains employed on the main line network. The quantity of material carried is sufficient for the day’s work expected of each train. The RATs are based on converted threecar 1973-stock passenger units that have a cab at each end (known as double-ended units), modified to carry the necessary equipment for the task. Dave said that the trains are completed and driver training is being undertaken, ready for the planned implementation date at the start of October. A further small modification is planned to make their brakes smoother in operation. Currently, step one of the braking of these older trains is a little abrupt, but there are two unused steps available in the braking system. The modification will bring these extra steps into use to “smooth” the braking curve, further reducing the risk of sliding. Other adhesion management is employed too. There are TGAs, fixed “traction gel applicators”, in certain locations where adhesion has historically been a problem. Two additional TGAs have been procured and installed on the western end of the route, and the positions of the existing ones have been reviewed and optimised. This last has been done in collaboration with the drivers, who have been able to identify which TGAs that were not best positioned and advise how to improve matters. Having mentioned the drivers, Dave went on to explain how the leaf-fall/ adhesion issue will be incorporated into the regular annual driver competency

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

Rail adhesion unit mounted in its special train.

refresher training sessions. Awareness of the problem will therefore be raised, and LU has also used feedback from drivers to assist the project. The project has installed warning signs at locations where poor adhesion is likely, to remind drivers of the risk. The projects work with Piccadilly line drivers means that these signs will have real meaning for them, rather than potentially being ineffectual tokens. The revised ‘leaf-fall’ timetable will see train speeds reduced from early October until mid December. Lower speeds reduce the risk of sliding under braking as deceleration rates can be lower, and also mean that acceleration rates need not be so great, which reduces the risk of wheel spin.

Vegetation control LU has a standard for the management of lineside vegetation that was introduced, amongst other reasons, to control the risks from leaf-fall. However, Dave suggested that tree growth appears to have accelerated in recent years. This and, possibly some lack of priority from management, have left a problem needing action. The project has been addressing this seriously and is well through the task of removing lineside trees from places where they should not be. Trees are now treated as assets, listed in an asset register and subjected to an asset management regime and a work programme. Laser scans have been used to identify trees within the designated clear zone adjacent to the line. The trees of

neighbours are not forgotten, if they are of a species and in a location that means they are a potential source of problems. Every effort is made to obtain the cooperation of the owners in order to ensure that they are managed to minimise the leaf fall on the LU lines. There have been comments from neighbours who have seen lineside trees disappear from their locality, and clearly not everyone welcomes such work, but the project has been active in warning neighbours and explaining why the action is essential. Dave was happy that the project team has been successful in managing this potentially tricky issue. This is quite an achievement for what has been described as the most intensive de-vegetation campaign LU has ever undertaken. The final element in the project strategy is the use of weather predictions to permit the anticipation of poor adhesion by time and location. The project has been working to obtain the most accurate weather prediction information available and a contract is now in place with the Met Office. It enables data to be fed directly into the automatic train operation systems used on some lines by LU. This will permit these trains to take account of weather conditions appropriately. It will also enable a quicker response to changing leaf fall conditions on other lines and aid the decision on when to deploy the RATs. Dave was pleased to be able to report that the project is confident of meeting its target schedule, and that he expects it to come in below budget.

FEATURE

Schooling local signalling skills

taff are probably more aware now than ever before about the risk posed by excessive travel to and from railway worksites, yet it continues to be an issue. Where engineering skills are in short supply, staff will often need

drafting in from far afield. Any major future infrastructure projects with work sites that span large geographical areas have the potential to compound the problem.

MPI - an agency which specialises in rail recruitment - is working to address this challenge and is seeing positive results from its partnership with industry.

Glasgow welcome MPI has been supplying trained personnel to the railway industry since 1989.The agency is a leader in signalling skills - although it also has expertise across rolling stock, civils and maintenance disciplines. MPI has been working with Siemens Rail Automation for the past five years to fill a void in the industry for signalling installation technicians. Last month, the first intake of rail signalling installation trainees to support signalling schemes in Scotland were welcomed at Siemens’ new Cambuslang depot just outside of Glasgow, where they will be based. Eighteen MPI trainees have been selected to take part. “A lot of them are asking what’s the catch?” said Simon Henser, a director at MPI. “The catch is they’ve got to be committed and got to show a great attitude towards safety.” Trainees will complete Basic Signalling 1 (BS1) and BS2 courses, which will give them the underpinning knowledge and experience in railway signalling they need to become IRSE-licensed installers.

Trainees initially undertake a 12-week work experience placement before completing a 10-day signalling engineering BS1/BS2/ SPWEE course. They then work as a trainee installer for six to nine months before working through a six-day electrical installation course. Simon commented: “There has been a recent shortage of IRSE licensed installation personnel and it is fantastic that Siemens Rail Automation in Glasgow have worked with MPI to start this scheme for Scotland. This is a clear demonstration that the Siemens team in Glasgow are keen to invest in local people for current and future projects in Scotland.” One of the new starters is 29-year-old Bryan McCarron from Motherwell. The father of two said he was relishing the opportunity to further his career with MPI and Siemens, having spent the last 12 years doing protection and civils work. “I think it’s a cracking opportunity and I am loving the trainee job and I am really keen to progress and make Siemens and MPI proud of me,” said Bryan. Following the launch of the trainee presentation, Bryan received an award from Siemens for the best close call of the month on the PARR project.

Largest but not the first Siemens, which employs around 1,650 in its Rail Automation business in the UK, has already delivered several signalling schemes in Scotland, including the Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central renewal schemes and the Airdrie to Bathgate and Borders Railway enhancement programmes. Future works include the Highlands and Edinburgh to Glasgow enhancement projects and the Motherwell North and Polmadie and Rutherglen renewals programmes. The programme being run in Glasgow is the largest but it is not the first, said Simon. Smaller trainee installation schemes are already being run with Siemens in York and Birmingham, as well as on the Crossrail project in London. Around 50 trainees have come through the programme to date. Richard Cooper, Siemens operations director, East, commented: “We are delighted to support this initiative. Trainees are vital to securing future generations of skilled workers on the railway, across all disciplines and trades, and this scheme supported by Siemens Rail Automation in Glasgow is a great step towards achieving this.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 156 | October 2017

CAREERS

Tram Technical Manager c.£40k + Benefits In order to support Nottingham Trams in its desire to be the number one tram operator in the UK, a vacancy has arisen for a Tram Technical Manager. We are an ambitious company, which will provide you with the opportunity to be part of Keolis, one of the world’s leading transport operators.

Qualifications

Nottingham Trams Ltd is responsible for operating and maintaining the tram system, it has a fleet of 37 trams and employs approximately 290 staff.

Knowledge and Experience

The main responsibilities include managing the daily service delivery of the trams and tram cleaning by ensuring that technical standards, maintenance practices and cleaning activities are complied with and that the safety of staff and passengers is given utmost priority by cultivating and promoting a strong safety culture – both on and off track. Provide technical leadership to our maintenance provider and to NTL through monitoring of the tram reliability and availability, liaising between operations and our maintenance provider and identifying areas of improvement throughout. Lead investigations into any technical matters and review and approve changes to maintenance standards, processes and procedures for tram vehicles based on sound engineering practices. You will ensure effective audit and performance management mechanisms are established and undertake regular audits of tram maintenance and tram cleaning contractor’s systems, processes and service delivery to ensure activities are safe, cost-effective and meet the obligations of NTL’s operating contract.

GLOBAL

Jobs

Great rail jobs around the world

www.globalrailjobs.com Rail Engineer | Issue 155 | September 2017

The successful candidate will have BEng or equivalent and CEng or working towards.

You will have experience in managing and delivering train/tram services within a major manufacturer, tram system or TOC and ideally

·· ·· ·

Understand electrical schematics and engineering drawings. Experience of maintenance management systems (i.e. SAP, Maximo etc). Good knowledge of current rail/tram technical standards and legislation. Experience in managing contracts with suppliers. Excellent skills in data analysis and MS Excel.

You will be a self-starter and able to work autonomously. To apply write to the HR Department, explaining why you think that you have the right attributes to be successful in this role. Nottingham Trams Limited Armstrong Way Wilkinson Street Nottingham NG7 7NW

E maria.dobney@thetram.net W www.thetram.net

way People

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

Unlocking capacity and improving reliability Helping your passengers travel when they choose â&#x20AC;&#x201C; safely and reliably.

As the need for capacity increases, Siemensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; digital solutions allow optimal use of infrastructure. Trains can run more frequently, data can be used to predict and prevent failure and disruption, and control centres can make decisions that improve service across the network. Passengers are given the latest information to streamline their journeys.

siemens.co.uk/digitalrailway