Rail Engineer - Issue 184 - May/June 2020

by rail engineers for rail engineers

MAY/JUNE 2020 – ISSUE 184

The

Kilsby Genie BLOCKADE SUCCESS AT GUILDFORD Track and S&C was replaced at Guildford during a ten-day blockade over Easter instead of disrupting traffic for 16 weekends.

VALUE OF CALL OUT CONTRACTS

REDUCING ELECTRIFICATION COSTS

When storms damaged earthworks at Brandon near Coventry, framework contractor Murphy quickly mobilised both staff and machinery.

With electrification back on the agenda, Siemens Mobility’s use of surge arresters will reduce the number of bridges that will need replacement.

www.railengineer.co.uk

PERMANENT WAY

WE ARE SUNBELT RENTALS Our vision is to redefine the future of rental.

Our family of leading equipment providers now operate under the Sunbelt Rentals brand. Making it easier for you to access our equipment and expertise.

We’ve committed to new innovative technologies and sustainable ways of working.

A single vision under one name.

Welcome to Sunbelt Rentals.

FIND OUT MORE AT WWW.SUNBELTRENTALS.CO.UK

16 CONTENTS

50

06|

News

10|

The Kilsby Genie

16|

Value of Call Out Contracts!

3

Tay bridge, Barmouth viaduct, HS2 procurement, Vossloh/CRRC.

Grahame Taylor explains how a two-week blockade of the WCML was planned in just 10 days!

Collin Carr reflects on a Murphy project to repair storm damage at Brandon near Coventry.

20

20|

Rhomberg Sersa's Swiss Army Knife

Why the UMH - part of Rhomberg Sersa’s Machine Group - is the versatile tool everybody needs.

76 24|

Blockade success at Guildford

50|

Respond, Rebuild, Revive and Renew

28|

Track renewal at Botley

52|

Rail decarbonisation update

31|

Getting rail drainage back on track

60|

Reducing the cost of electrification

32|

Parisian politics divide deal for British Steel

62|

The Grand Paris Express

36|

Crossrail’s signalling challenge

66|

Intelligent Infrastructure explained

42|

Unlocking Innovation online

71|

A little sand in the right place works wonders part 4, Passenger Service

49|

Face coverings - why can’t Scientists agree?

76|

New Merseyrail ‘connected’ trains

Mark Phillips looks at a 10-day blockade over Easter, in the early days of the Covid-19 lockdown.

Replacing track on a single line has its own challenges and needs special machinery.

ABG Fildrains are speeding up trackside drainage and reducing costs.

Daniel Pyke describes the manoeuvring that separated the steel works at Scunthorpe and Hayange.

Clive Kessell considers the complications of having three signalling systems on one railway.

David Shirres attends RIA’s perennial innovation event, held online and spread over five days.

The science behind the use of face masks on public transport, and why they are needed.

Andrew Haines considers a post-Covid railway and what it needs to do to serve passengers best.

In just three months, since Rail Engineer’s first report in March, the situation has changed and progressed.

Justin Moss reveals how Siemens Mobility’s work on surge arrestors eliminates the need for many bridge rebuilds.

Lesley Brown has been speaking with Alexandre Missoffe, architect of the French capital’s new rail ring.

Tim Flower outlines Network Rail’s digital asset performance management programme.

Malcolm Dobell revisits the RSSB’s sander development trials as they reach the main line.

Paul Darlington investigates the new Class 777 trains and their extensive new Wi-Fi system.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

Serious planning TRS offers a complete project management service that takes you all the way from plan to plant.

Grounded in our unrivalled industry knowledge and expertise, we can save time, protect budget and improve quality on your next project – helping you get the job done safer and better than ever before.

Call 01962 711642 for more or go online. totalrailsolutions.co.uk

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

EDITORIAL

Changing Times When China imposed a lockdown on the 11 million residents of Wuhan in January, few imagined that a London lockdown would follow two months later. However, unlike Wuhan, this did not close down public transport.

Keeping trains running required the immediate adoption of many changes, such as extra cleaning, maintaining social distancing and a ban on whistles. New ways of working were devised for train and infrastructure maintenance. The response of the industry and its staff was superb. Yet all this was for virtually empty trains.

This brought an end to franchising and raised questions about future rail investment, in particular HS2, due to the expected post Covid-19 fall in passenger numbers. Yet, as the DfT’s decarbonising transport document stresses, in the long term, there needs to be a shift from road to rail. This requires a significant increase in rail capacity. Even a small percentage shift from road to rail would overwhelm the rail network.

As the lockdown is eased, maintaining two-metre social distancing on trains presents a huge challenge. As we report, Andrew Haines considers this could result in “a very chaotic situation”, although he was pleased that face coverings are required on public transport. Yet the government considers that this only offers limited protection against the virus. Furthermore, scientists cannot agree on the effectiveness of face coverings.

The University of Edinburgh has shown that face coverings can reduce the distance that particles travel after leaving the mouth by 90 per cent.

In addition, a University of Oxford paper explains how the virus leaves the respiratory tract in large saliva droplets which can be contained by face coverings. Once ejected from the mouth, such droplets become aerosols, against which surgical masks are the only protection. As safety practitioners know, PPE should be the last line of defence, as risk control is more effective if a hazard is controlled at source.

Our feature on face coverings has examples of them being highly effective and explains the scientific differences about them.

Unfortunately, when combined with a government message that they offer limited protection, such differences reduce the credibility of an effective way of fighting the virus. The reasons why face coverings are effective need to be clearly explained to the public if their use, and any associated reduction in social distancing on trains, is to be accepted.

Reduced rail traffic does offer opportunities for additional engineering work. For example, it took just nine days to plan a 14-day blockade for major work in Kilsby tunnel and adjacent lines whilst West Coast main line traffic was diverted via Northampton. Mark Phillips also describes the Easter blockade at Guildford, whilst Nigel Wordsworth covers the seven-day blockade to renew track at Botley. The emergency work to stabilise Brandon cutting started before the Covid-19 crisis. Collin Carr describes the complex nature of this work.

All these features describe the Covid-19 precautions taken during the work, including measures taken to protect the work itself. Such projects also involve shifting large amounts of material, for which specialist kit, such as Rhomberg Sersa’s UMH, offers improved productivity.

Grahame Taylor explains why this is the Swiss Army knife of railway machinery.

It was ironic the COVID lockdown transformed the Railway Industry Association’s Unlocking Innovation event “Digital journeys for rail passengers and freight” into a virtual event. Its five one-hour webinars covered a wide range of, primarily data-driven, innovations to benefit passengers, improve freight services and introduce mobility as a service as well as future light rail developments.

Turning masses of data into useful information to improve infrastructure asset reliability whilst reducing costs is the goal of Network Rail’s intelligent infrastructure initiative. Tim Flower explains how its reliability-centred maintenance and state-of-the-art monitoring will give maintenance teams what they need.

Half a billion pounds is being spent to give Merseyrail new trains.

This requires infrastructure improvements such as a 100Mbps data link from a new Wi-Fi network and extensive platform alterations. Paul Darlington details this work and explains the benefits it will bring.

Double variable rate sanders can also benefit passengers by giving them an eight-second reduction in running time between stations.

Malcolm Dobell explains why.

Crossrail is a tad more expensive than Merseyrail’s investment. One reason for its high cost is that its trains have three different signalling systems. Clive Kessell explains why and considers if its signalling could have been simpler. From France, Lesley Brown reports on the Grand Paris Express, a new-build automatic metro that will connect the city’s suburbs. Her report explains why this long-term investment project has the support of all French political parties. Politics and Paris also feature in Daniel Pyke’s sad story of the various deals that preceded the eventual sale of British Steel to its Chinese owners and its impact on the supply of rails.

It seems that the electrification map that we recently published is in line with current government thinking, as our decarbonisation update feature explains. If so, delivering affordable electrification will be crucial. In this respect, Justin Moss explains how surge arresters can reduce the number of bridge reconstructions needed for electrification.

In these uncertain changing times, it is good to see such a positive change in government DAVID policy.

SHIRRES

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

5

6

THE TEAM

NEWS

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

Production Editor

1,200 sleepers to be replaced on Tay Bridge

Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.co.uk

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

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

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Craig Smith craig@rail-media.com

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.co.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

Part of: ® www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

More than 1,200 sleepers are being replaced on the Tay Bridge, the longest railway structure in Scotland.

One in three sleepers, including base plates and Pandrol clips, are being replaced and the ballast below them renewed and re-packed. This will deliver improvements to the stability and extend the lifespan of the track.

This project, which will be ongoing until September, is designed to extend the life of the track and is being delivered in a way which minimises the disruption for passengers.

Replacing only one in three sleepers will improve track quality while minimising the time taken to replace them during overnight possessions.

It represents an investment of more than £500,000 to improve the resilience and reliability of the two-mile-long structure and follows on from the £75 million restoration of the bridge’s metalwork completed in 2017.

Some of the sleepers’ base plates date back to the early 1960s and the timber sleepers are now at the end of their natural life having been open to the elements and the impacts of the salty air in this exposed coastal location.

In total, some 60 tonnes of sleepers are being installed and an equivalent amount of redundant material and spoil removed from the bridge over the period of the project.

Grant Ritchie, Network Rail’s works delivery manager, said: “Any project on an historic and iconic structure like the Tay Bridge is always a pleasure but it presents its own problems due to its unique design and location. Being open to the elements over the Firth of Tay is unpredictable in itself even when the work is during the summer months.

“Working in a confined location, such as on a bridge, also presents a logistical challenge in normal times but we now have the additional element of ensuring physical distancing, where possible. To do this we are following best advice, using additional protective equipment and learning new ways of working that will help keep everyone safe and let us get the job done.”

NEWS

Barmouth viaduct to receive biggest restoration in its history Network Rail is about to commence a £25 million upgrade of Barmouth viaduct to protect it for local people and visitors in the future.

A large number of the timber and metal elements of the Grade II* listed viaduct need replacing, as well as the entire length of track.

In order to reduce the impact of the work, it will take place over three years, with three shorter full closures of the 19th century viaduct, rather than one longer full closure. The first closure is planned for this autumn, when the restoration of the bridge’s timber elements begins. Preparation work will begin in June.

Barmouth Viaduct was built in 1864 across the Mawddach on the Cambrian Coast line, between Pwllheli and Machynlleth. The only major timber-built bridge still in use, it is 820 metres in length - 700 metres timber/120 metres metallic. The viaduct was originally built with a drawbridge on the northern end, but this was replaced with a steel swing bridge in 1900.

Network Rail’s route director for Wales and Borders, Bill Kelly, said: “Barmouth viaduct is one of the most celebrated and recognisable structures in Wales and is the only major timber-built bridge still in use.

“We are investing £25 million to give Barmouth viaduct the biggest upgrade in its history, protecting our industrial heritage

and ensuring this vital transport link can continue to serve local people and visitors, when the time comes, for generations to come.

“We have been working closely with Cadw, Gwynedd County Council and other stakeholders over several years to develop our plans. I want to reassure the local community that we

have adapted these plans to make sure we are following Government guidelines during the Covid-19 pandemic.”

James Price, Transport for Wales CEO, said: “I’m delighted that Network Rail are making this major investment in safeguarding the future of this iconic structure and the Cambrian Coast Line. This

investment sits alongside our own investment in transforming services throughout the Wales and Borders network, including brand new trains and extra services for the Cambrian Coast Line in the years to come.

“We’re working collaboratively to ensure minimal disruption for our passengers while work takes place.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

7

8

NEWS

HS2 opens procurement competition for signalling and slab track With the Prime Minister having announced the decision to go ahead with HS2, the first rail systems procurement competitions have commenced - for track and signalling.

Four new contract opportunities cover the design and build of the complex track systems between London, Birmingham and Crewe, where HS2 trains will join the existing West Coast Mainline. The winners will also take a lead role in managing and coordinating the complex interfaces between the track and other elements of the rail systems.

Four separate track packages will be awarded:

» Lot 1 - Phase One (Urban - London and Birmingham) £434m » Lot 2 - Phase One (Open Route - Central) - £526m » Lot 3 - Phase One (Open Route -North) - £566m » Lot 4 - Track - Phase 2a £431m In order to reduce long term costs and improve performance, the track will be set onto concrete slabs instead of the ballast commonly used

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

on the UK rail network. This approach - known as slab track - is commonly used on metro systems and some international high-speed rail lines and will allow for a higher frequency of service with less maintenance.

Contracts covering rail, switches and crossings and pre-cast slab track systems will be awarded separately - with the track systems suppliers coordinating the design and installation.

HS2 has also started looking for a supplier of signalling and traffic management.

This contract will cover the design and build of the incab signalling systems that will control trains travelling at speeds of up to 360km/h between London, Birmingham and Crewe - where HS2 trains will join the existing West Coast main line - and up to 25 years of technical support.

The Control, Command, Signalling (CCS) and Traffic Management (TM) Systems

contracts will require the winning bidder to deliver the work with a combined value of £540 million, including: » Design, manufacture, supply, installation, supervision, inspection, safety authorisation, testing, commissioning and maintenance until handover to trial operations of the Phase One and Phase 2a CCS & TM systems; » Potential extension of the Phase One / 2a TM system to cover Phase 2b; » CCS & TM works required for the Phase 2b alterations at Euston station; and » Provision of technical support services for the CCS & TM systems for up to 25 years.

The CCS & TM systems provided on HS2 will utilise European Train Control System (ETCS) signalling and the latest TM technology.

Shortlists are set to be announced next year with contract award around 2022.

NEWS

Vossloh sells German locomotives business to China's CRRC German group Vossloh AG has sold its Locomotives business unit, based in Kiel, Germany, to the world's largest train manufacturer, China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC).

The purchase was made by CRRC ZELC (CRRC Zhuzhou Locomotive Co) on 31 May 2020, following approval from the German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) a few weeks earlier.

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

The Locomotives business unit develops and produces dieselelectric locomotives and offers all the maintenance and repair services that they require. Its sale marks the end of Vossloh’s original Transportation division - the other two units, Rail Vehicles and Electrical Systems, were sold in 2015 and 2017.

Vossloh chief executive Oliver Schuster said: “The sale of our Kielbased locomotive business is an extremely important milestone in Vossloh’s strategic development. It marks the end of a fundamental realignment of our company over several years. From now on, Vossloh’s focus will be entirely on rail infrastructure products and services.

“I am delighted that in CRRC ZELC we have found a strong, reliable and above all long-term buyer for our former Locomotives unit. We are convinced that the future prospects of Locomotives will improve significantly with CRRC ZELC as new owner.”

Rail Signalling Contractor £14m Turnover

WE INSURE • RRV and Plant Companies • P-Way, S&T, S&C, SMTH, OLE and Civils contractors • 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

insurances which we negotiated out.

• Site survey, Management Interviews and Gap Analysis conducted • Risk Report presented to the insurance market previous premium.

• Receiving recommendations from this happy client.

£44,000 SAVING ON INSURANCE PREMIUM

Contact Keven Parker on 07816 283949 / 0121 4528717 / 0207 9839039 Email: keven.parker@jjrail.co.uk

30-PAGE

RISK REPORT TO

INSURERS

PUBLIC LIABILITY WORKS AND PLANT DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY

MOTOR FLEET

£14M

TURNOVER

52%

SAVING

SITE VISIT

CONDUCTED

Offices in Birmingham, London and around the country.

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

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

JobsonJames_Advert_01.12.2015_B_Amended.indd 2

15/12/2015 10:33 Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

9

10

FEATURE

GRAHAME TAYLOR

H

ere at Rail Engineer magazine, we seem to have a thing about tunnels - especially tunnels with blocked drains. Back in 2012, we scrambled through Dove Holes in Derbyshire. For a Christmas treat in 2017, we covered Sevenoaks tunnel.

Obviously so impressed, we went back in 2018 - although it might have been that the author had forgotten that he’d written about it only a year earlier!

The

Kilsby Genie

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

Same themes - long wet tunnels, clogged drains, bad track.

So, how can we explain the attraction of Kilsby tunnel? It, too, is wet. It, too, is long. It, too, has track issues and, of course, it, too, has a blocked drain.

All the boxes are ticked but, by now surely, these alone can’t be enough.

And what’s the strange title all about?

Groundwater and chemistry Let us, for a moment, step back (carefully) and look at some basic facts.

Kilsby tunnel is on the southern part of the West Coast main line (WCML) just to the south of Rugby. When it was opened in 1838, at 2,432 yards (2,224 metres) long, it was then the longest tunnel in the world.

It was a challenging tunnel to construct, the work having been frustrated by running sand and groundwater. One hundred and sixty-two years later, the groundwater, at least, is still causing problems. With a high mineral content, anything static that is drenched in water percolating from the tunnel walls and soffit will gradually acquire a coating of calcium carbonate - and probably other ‘stuff’ as well. The track ballast is static and, over time, becomes calcified.

The same thing happens to the drains.

Everything turns to something as hard and impenetrable as concrete.

This has been going on in Kilsby tunnel for generations. The central drain, in parts, ceased to function. The track was not drained, and track quality suffered.

In recent months, in order to reduce the number of ‘rough ride’ reports, an Emergency Speed Restriction of 90mph had been imposed - from a normal linespeed of 110mph.

FEATURE industry also made an abrupt change in the way it normally worked. There was a seismic shift.

Maybe it was as a result of a chance remark made at the right moment. Maybe it was just a general realisation that now was the right time to suggest the unthinkable, to think about a complete blockade of the WCML - now!

Apart from during times of crisis, railway projects tend to evolve cautiously. But this was a crisis and an opportunity. And the railways always rise to a crisis!

Machinery working inside Kilsby tunnel, viewed from above down one of the tunnel’s massive vent shafts.

Timetabling issues ‘Something had to be done’ as Network Rail was being charged hundreds of thousands of pounds in delay penalties on one of the busiest parts of the national network.

Empty trains In normal times - and early 2020 was not normal - the repairs to the drain would have taken years to organise. Many repair attempts had been made, but with only 16-hour rules-of-the-route possessions available, these have generally been ineffective.

The idea of a long blockade of Kilsby had, until now, been in the rather difficult pile. It wasn’t going to happen any time soon.

But, as has just been mentioned, early 2020 was not normal. This was the time of the Covid-19 pandemic, when everyone was encouraged to stay at home and not use public transport. By and large, the public did stay at home and very few travelled on the trains. Indeed, the normal passenger loadings of the Avanti services were in single figures or barely double figures. A special, deconstructed timetable was in use.

Rising to a crisis This is the point when a mundane story about a wet tunnel with a blocked drain takes an abrupt turn into the unexpected. It does so because the rail

Before anything was done on the ground, there were conversations to be had. The parties involved with this part of the WCML were Network Rail, Avanti - its trains use the ‘old’ line straight through to Rugby and beyond - West Midlands Trains, LNWR and the freight community, which run around the Northampton line.

With a tentative proposal that the line through Kilsby be blocked, Avanti was asked to comment on impacts to their services. The diversion through Northampton adds about 15 minutes to a mainline service and it was this extra time that affects both turnround times at terminuses and unit usage.

Proud to Support the Kilsby Tunnel Project SPECIALISED DRAINAGE COMPONENTS

Tel: 01695 51933 Aqua Fabrications Half Page.indd 2

Email: sales@aquafab.co.uk

www.aquafab.co.uk 11/06/2020 16:54 Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

11

12

FEATURE Quick analysis showed that the extra time actually helped Avanti in some locations, because terminating trains could be held in a platform instead of having to shuffle out of the way until the return departure time. On some longer services, an extra unit was needed to maintain return timings.

Network Rail looked at the pathing of Avanti trains and points of conflict with slower trains. It was found that, with the less onerous demands of the deconstructed timetable, the Avanti trains could just follow each other via Northampton with very little interruption of the West Midlands or LNWR services.

This worked so long as enough time was built into the revised Avanti running.

It is tempting to think that this exercise was an application of an existing contingency plan for when the WCML is blocked because of a major incident. It wasn’t, as contingency plans are based on normal timetables. The Kilsby blockade timetabling had to be started from scratch.

Deconfliction, a process (as the name suggests) of determining where/when train paths conflict, can be a lengthy process, but, because there were fewer trains, one of Network Rail’s signallers ran the simulator and put a ready-reckoner deconflictor together. Every time a conflict was identified, a regulating policy was decided. This boiled down to a view that an Avanti train would go first and the WM train would be two mins late. “We’ll just live with it.”

(Left) A moment of socially distanced silence for VE day. (Right) One of the mobile ventilation fans.

Shopping list The mood was positive. In fact, the mood can be summarised in the words: “Do you know what, we will be kicking ourselves in three months’ time if we don’t take this opportunity.” From that point on, the project had a life of its own and there was an almost collegiate approach to make it all work.

The length of the blockade depended on the length of the shopping list, so engineers looked at the core requirements. These were 800 yards of drain renewal, 870 yards of track renewal on the Down line and 650 yards on the Up line.

The track renewals engineers boiled this down to a requirement for a ten-day blockade - from a Monday.

What emerged through further rapid discussions was an offer of two full weeks with the weekends at each end.

The idea was to engage in maintenance works at the weekends and let the drain and track renewals team work in the intervening time.

Breaking out the old drainage pipes.

Thus, the project was born, industry partners were on board and all was set for a hectic few weeks.

Feeding frenzy Of course, as word spread that there was going to be a blockade on the WCML, engineers of all descriptions started to amass like bees round a honeypot. Here was an opportunity to carry out work that couldn’t be missed.

To control this feeding frenzy, the blockade was split into four logical worksites - A, B, C and D. Worksite A was the tunnel, with trains coming and going from the North. Worksite B was a mix of renewal and maintenance and therefore had a management structure that controlled it in a renewals-based manner.

Worksites C and D, to the south, were predominantly maintenance and so were more ‘high-street’ environments, where people booked in and out and were able to do maintenance and ad hoc activity in a less ‘regimented’ manner.

Whilst many industry norms were being broken in the birth of the blockade, the actual worksites conformed with known and accepted activity templates. When work is planned within a tight timescale, industry processes and protocols have to be used to give the practical impression that it’s business as usual. People are then working in a manner that they recognise.

On the ground All this happened at a strategic level.

Closer to the ground, there was also much activity and it’s worth seeing how everyone’s efforts blended to ensure a successful outcome.

Symon Reid is Network Rail’s infrastructure maintenance engineer. He manages the infrastructure from the 34 mile post in the Cheddington area, near Aylesbury, to just south of Coventry on the Coventry line and just south of Shilton on the Trent valley lines. Kilsby is on a critical two-track section between Rugby and Milton Keynes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE “We’d been doing some drainage inspections in the tunnel and found a run of drainage of about 150 metres that was completely collapsed and clogged with all sorts of silt and calcified ballast.

“Track defects were increasing and we were building up a project to mend the drainage, but the only way to do it was to remove one of the roads and break out the drains completely, to allow it to be renewed.

“The tunnel has had water problems for many years. There is a very high watertable in the tunnel and, with the drain in the six foot being clogged, it is easily overwhelmed.”

The idea of a bold project to tackle the drain was being hatched, but it came as a ‘surprise’ to hear that, not only was a blockade agreed, it was also happening in five days’ time!

His Northampton maintenance team was mobilised and made the most of the extended possession times on this intensively trafficked part of his network.

The phone call Stevie Welsh is the senior programme manager with the CRSA (Central Rail Systems Alliance) at the Aston depot.

His involvement with the project started with a telephone call. There was a simple request. “If there was a blockade of Kilsby tunnel for 15 days, what would we be able to do?” At this stage there was no mention of forward timescales - it was a routine enquiry perhaps. Conversations took place, past specifications were researched, bar charts were drawn up.

The reply to the query was sent in.

Then came the start date. Saturday 2 May - in nine days’ time!

“The weekend prior to the start, the team went into the tunnel and did a site walkover to check the specs on the ground and to get the job marked up.

There were the plant companies, the labour suppliers, signalling engineers, overhead line engineers and the track maintainer, along with Manta, the tunnel ventilation fan supplier.

“Trial holes along the length of the drain were dug, to see how the two tracks were affected.

“Bringing everyone together gave us the confidence that we could deliver all this work.

“The biggest unknown was the old drainage system, because we didn’t know how difficult it would be to remove. The renewal of the drain would be fine. The renewal of the track would be fine.”

Critical component requirements included all the items needed to install the drain - the pipes, catchpits etc.

These were placed on order with the

manufacturer, Aqua, which changed its production schedule specially to accommodate the Kilsby job.

The design scheme was by PBH and was based on works previously carried out in the tunnel.

All’s well - until it isn’t!

It was known that the existing drain was of concrete construction and that it could cause difficulties during removal. The team was encouraged by making rapid progress at first, when the first 100 yds went very smoothly………… until it didn’t.

Hydraulic peckers had to be used and, even then, progress became frustratingly slow. It was time to regroup. Bar charts were modified. Contingency times were absorbed. Traincrew times were changed and all the companies involved were put on notice that shift arrangements were likely to be amended. A demolition job that should have taken three days extended to six.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

13

14

FEATURE

Kwik - Step Modular Platforms and Stairways

It was time for everyone to hold their nerve. The main priority was to renew the drain. Ending the blockade without renewing the drain would mean that the track would rapidly deteriorate and the prospect of getting another blockade anytime soon was vanishingly remote.

In the end, those tackling the stubborn drain began to adapt to the difficulties and progress accelerated. With the drain out of the way, the remaining tasks - drain and track renewal - were all familiar and predictable. Tensions eased and the possession was handed back at 06:23 on Sunday 15 May, with all work completed as planned.

Covid-19 precautions

Lightweight FRP Minimal Groundwork Simple Assembly Available from Stock

Lookout Posts & Refuges

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

Galvanized Steel Stairways

The Kilsby project was a direct result of the Covid-19 emergency. Without it, passenger numbers would not have plummeted and there would never have been a discussion about a two-week blockade on the WCML in early springtime.

However, with the opportunities came limitations and obligations. Just because the blockade had been agreed didn’t mean that the virus had somehow gone away. The threat still remained and had to be managed.

Social distancing - keeping two metres apart - had to be maintained. Fortunately, disciplines had evolved over the previous weeks and these were incorporated in the work patterns.

Work in Linslade tunnel, a single bore tunnel further south on the WCML, a fortnight earlier had also been carried out under Covid restrictions and measures were found to be practical.

These involved reminder signs, sanitisers around the compound area and a removal of sitting down messing facilities to avoid close contact.

Covid marshals, present on site and also at the compound area, made sure that everyone social-distanced. There are tasks where two-metre distancing was not possible. For these activities, airfed masks were available.

Maintenance work has had to work with Covid restrictions from day one of the lockdown. Again, a mix of distancing and PPE is used. Asked whether this has had an impact on productivity, Symon’s reaction was that, counter-intuitively, it didn’t seem to slow work down at all.

Strategic reflections

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

0117 929 1400

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

James Dean, route director for WCML South at Network Rail, reflected on the whole project.

“With the wider industry driving devolution to get route structures closer to customers - train operators and freight - we felt that this one, really unusual approach to things had actually created a very devolved approach to life,” he commented.

FEATURE “What we found was that we had contractors, operations, maintenance, track renewals, the supply chain - we had technical authority - all working in a very quick, fleetof-foot, prioritised, customer-focussed manner to deliver something that was extraordinary.

“The biggest lesson learnt is that we have found how to work like that. It’s a really good indicator of what can be done when we devolve things more, down into route structures within Network Rail.

“Beyond any doubt, we changed ways that people thought things could be done. Take, for example, ‘simple’ things like procurement. If we need to be doing things like this on a regular basis, we need to look at our procurement methodology. We need to look at how our frameworks with our suppliers can be set up. We need to understand how chains of command can be made slicker.

“Another powerful example was drafting the scope and remit for the work. We sat down and, within a day or two, had written a fairly detailed summary for the contractor to go and deliver. That would take six months normally - it’s just crazy when you think of it. But those sorts of things where people just sit down and have a conversation, rather than a long drawn out GRIP process, is where I think we really identified the benefit of people working in a much more localised manner.”

Gus Dunster, executive director of operations at Avanti West Coast, concurred: “We are pleased to have played an important part to facilitate this unique opportunity for Network Rail to access and maintain the railway between Rugby and Milton Keynes.

“This is a notoriously difficult section of the network to maintain, due to the density of traffic that it carries, and speed restrictions have frequently needed to be applied because of this.

“The scale of work undertaken would usually involve months of careful planning but, with a reduced timetable in operation due to the Covid-19 pandemic, we were able to do this in a matter of days. Working together with Network Rail, we could facilitate access for the project, while ensuring our vital services were protected for key workers and those making essential journeys.

We put customers at the heart of our plans and diverted our trains via Northampton to keep them moving and minimise the impact to their journeys.

“The project has been a great achievement in unprecedented circumstances and, with 292 of our trains passing through Kilsby Tunnel on a typical weekday, the restoration of the line will improve reliability for many customers for years to come.”

There we have it. Another story about a wet tunnel with a blocked drain. But the parallel tale is about how railway decisionmaking can be slick, can be focussed on customers and can achieve remarkable outcomes.

It’s not rocket science. We’ve just seen, despite the national emergency - or maybe because of it - a full-scale working model of how effectively the railway can be run.

The genie is out of the bottle!

SAVINGS ON THE KILSBY TUNNEL PROJECT -65db

10,334 kg CO2

£3,085

NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION

EMISSIONS REDUCTION

DIESEL COST SAVING

The ProTrack is a rechargeable, battery-powered link lighting system that offers a simple and versatile new off-grid solution for illuminating night-time trackside working.

As an alternative to diesel generators, ProTrack is silent and fume-free, so is ideal for lighting long stretches of track, tunnels, bridges and walkways. Weighing in at less than 50kg, each ProTrack portable battery unit powers up to 100 metres of link lighting, with up to 27 hours between rapid recharging.

Available for hire.

NO EMISSIONS No fumes or greenhouse gas emissions

NO NOISE Benefits for urban locations and night projects

NO FUEL No diesel costs, spills, or refuelling

NO MAINTENANCE Just setup and leave to operate

01275 400 570 info@prolectric.co.uk www.prolectric.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

15

16

PERMANENT WAY

Value of Call Out Contracts!

Brandon Emergency - West Coast main line

R

BS1 is the Rugby, Birmingham, Stafford line, often referred to as the Birmingham loop. The West Coast main line (WCML) starts at London Euston, heading north. At Rugby, it splits. One route goes up the Trent Valley, with stations at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield, before reaching Stafford and Crewe.

The other goes via Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton, before it too reaches Stafford. That’s the Birmingham Loop.

On route to Birmingham New Street, the two-tracked, electrified line lies in a cutting, which passes through Brandon approximately 86 miles from London.

Brandon is probably better known for its Grade 2 listed viaduct, built in 1836 and designed by Robert Stephenson as part of the London and Birmingham Railway. However, it is the cutting, a couple of miles away which is the subject of this article.

You may recall that, at the beginning of February this year, the UK was exposed to a series of storms, in particular to Storm Ciara, a powerful, extratropical cyclone, which formed the first of a pair of rain and wind storms that pounded our shores. The storms were less than a week apart, the second one being Storm Dennis.

A number of people were killed and the rainfall levels were unprecedented, both during these storms and in previous months. The rainfall, which became a critical factor in exposing any earthwork instability within the railway network, was accompanied by winds that were recorded at 97mph, helping to make overall conditions extremely hazardous.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

COLLIN CARR

Impact of climate change It is worth noting that the Summer of 2019, was recorded as the twelfth warmest on record, which meant that Network Rail’s geotechnical specialists were working with track engineers to manage the risks created by dry ground conditions.

Then the following six months were dominated by wet conditions and, by the autumn, the ground was saturated across much of the UK. The South East led the trend and this gradually migrated northwards to the Midlands. September was particularly wet and rainfall was recorded as 127 per cent of the UK average. In fact, only November saw a rainfall figure of lower than average (97 per cent).

CO2 levels are beginning to have a significant impact on our infrastructure and everyday life.

Because of the storms, the stability of the cutting at Brandon was causing concern. Network Rail has a call-out contract in place with contractors J Murphy & Sons, an organisation that has developed a reputation as the preferred contractor for earthworks as they are well equipped to respond to such a concern, with their own heavy plant and skilled

PERMANENT WAY team to organise a land agreement with the farmer/landowner to ensure that access to the top of the cutting was agreed, to allow the large 32-tonne excavators and other long reach earth moving machines that would be required to carry out the work to reach the site.

Protect the horses

operators in place throughout the country.

Also, with depots strategically located in the north, south and midlands, rapid mobilisation within hours of a call is quite possible.

Action following storm Ciara So, it was as a result of this unprecedented level of rainfall that Murphy received a phone call from Network Rail on 7 February, whilst storm Ciara was still in progress. Murphy was invited to attend a site meeting, at Limestone Hall Lane in Brandon, Coventry on the RBS1 line to examine a bank slip which had occurred on the Up Side of the cutting over a length approximately 200 metres.

Network Rail explained that it was in the process of arranging an emergency possession and isolation for the following night, to enable Murphy to remove the failed slip material and eventually stabilise the cutting by installing concrete blocks to retain any further slippage. Murphy’s representative at this emergency meeting was its project manager Christopher Reynolds, who is based in the regional offices at Stafford.

Competent watchman Christopher explained to Rail Engineer that, at the meeting, Murphy was also instructed to have a competent person/watchman positioned at this location around the clock until stability of the embankment could be resolved.

Fortunately, Murphy has site staff on a call-out rota, ready to respond within hours to such an incident.

So, consequently, a watchman was positioned in a safe place in the cutting, armed with contact details for Network Rail control if circumstances were to change. Tower lights were put in position to illuminate the whole cutting, to enable the watch man to identify quickly any earthwork movement and respond accordingly.

To support this approach, Network Rail had imposed a Temporary Speed Restriction on both lines of 20mph (freight) and 50mph (passenger) throughout the cutting.

The team that was gathered to tackle this problem included Network Rail senior asset engineer Luke Swain and Murphy works manager Cathal McCann. They liaised with the Network Rail properties

This access was critical, and Murphy was instructed to install 150 metres of wooden post-and-rail fencing to segregate the farmer’s horses from the planned work area.

Once this was completed, Murphy was then able to bring in large plant, including 32-tonne earth-moving equipment and a 60-tonne long-reach machine, to start work on the cutting. This all had to happen in a short space of time and Christopher explained that the farmer was very accommodating and helpful throughout the work, even though he was having to deal with circumstances that were totally unexpected.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

17

18

PERMANENT WAY

Whilst the delicate and critical access negotiation was underway, Murphy’s team proceeded to establish the extent of the problem and to produce a design that would offer long-term stability for the cutting. However, whilst its engineers were on site, the bad weather continued over the following days and it was discovered that more of the cutting had failed and several pre-existing tension cracks were deteriorating, due to the continuing inclement weather. Slips 2,3 and 4 were now emerging.

Fortunately, Murphy was able to respond to this significant deterioration and new plans for additional resources were quickly put into action. Also, as Network Rail’s Luke Swain pointed out, the additional possessions that would be needed were quickly supported by the passenger and freight train operators. Joint plans, involving a huge amount of additional work, emerged from all parties that were agreed, enabling the route to remain open during this troublesome period.

Additional large excavators ranging from 13 to 67 tonnes were brought in along with additional road-rail equipment.

Fortunately, the majority of the plant was owned by Murphy itself, and this was quickly dispatched from its plant depots at Golborne (Wigan), Hemel Hempstead and Cannock.

To keep everything happening in a safe and controlled manner, Murphy site manager Paul Tarbuck was the ever-present leader on site. He was working six or seven days every week to ensure that everything ran smoothly and that plant, materials and a skilled workforce were available on site and ready to work. The weather was improving, so what could go wrong?

The unleashing of a global pandemic, perhaps?

Safe distancing COVID-19 was not a problem at the time of the initial call-out, but it soon imposed itself on the work - and the world. However, because the contractors were using heavy plant and machines operated by individuals working alone, they were able to comply with the social distancing measures that were being imposed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

All machine movements were being overseen by banksmen, equipped with two-way radio systems, thus enabling compliance with the emerging government standards for the pandemic.

As a further measure, Murphy also decided to introduce additional canteens, drying rooms and toilets to comply with social spacing and to have all site accommodation cleaned on a daily basis by experienced contracted cleaners.

Consecutive Saturday nights were utilised following the initial callout but, as the torrential rain continued and the situation deteriorated, three more slips were identified. All parties agreed that it was no longer possible to contain the situation solely with weekend working and that they would need to attend site under midweek possessions to install concrete blocks through the entire length of the cutting - approximately 200 metres.

Network Rail also planned to bring in a large freight train with empty wagons that could remove nearly a 1,000 tonnes in one night, which meant that the speed restrictions could be lifted and the permanent regrade works could commence.

PERMANENT WAY Only viable design The services of international designers BryneLooby, with headquarters in Dublin, were procured by Murphy and a design was signed off and agreed to regrade the full length of the Up side cutting and install a Redi-Rock wall at the toe of the cutting.

Christopher explained that other options were considered, but these were soon put aside as this was the only viable option, given the current circumstances.

The cost of the works will be in the order £4.5 million. Fortunately, the weather has now improved considerably and the works are progressing well. Stone is being delivered from the quarries as requested and, at the time of writing this article, about 30 per cent of the planned work is complete with final completion due in August 2020.

In addition to the emergency work, Murphy is currently supporting Network Rail’s efforts in assessing the stability of the remainder of the cutting. This includes the installation of monitoring equipment and facilitating detailed inspections by Network Rail’s geotechnical engineers.

As Luke Swain noted, throughout this challenging period, Murphy has not only provided a critical role as the on-

call earthworks contractor at Brandon Cutting, it has also managed this large complex site in conjunction with a series of other landslips that were triggered across the region by the winter weather conditions. A crucial element of the supply chain which keeps the railway safe and operational for passengers and freight, Murphy will have a significant part to play in delivering Network Rail’s ambitious geotechnical renewals plan on the North West and Central region.

Given all that is happening in the world today, with COVID-19, lockdown and a

global pandemic, it is easy to ignore the day-to-day emergencies, but they don’t just go away. Murphy has clearly thought through the different emergencies that could hijack the UK railway network.

It has organised its engineering teams strategically and was ready to respond to whatever storm Ciara had to offer, helping Network Rail to maintain a pathway for trains to run on one of the most important routes in the railway network, emphasising the value of being prepared to respond to whatever emerges, be it virus or tempest!

FAST. EASY. SAFE Data Collection with the TRIMBL GEDO IMS System

SCAN TO VIEW ONLINE

UK: 0345 603 1214 IRL: 01 456 4702 www.korecgroup.com info@korecgroup.com Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

19

20

PERMANENT WAY

Rhomberg Sersa’s Swiss Army Knife GRAHAME TAYLOR

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

PERMANENT WAY

CATCHING UP WITH EUROPE’S MATERIALS HANDLING

W

hen someone who has had over forty years in the railway industry says that a machine is probably one of the most versatile railway materials handlers available, it is time to take notice!

Tony Fazekas, business development manager for Rhomberg Sersa, started his railway career dealing with the very first stone-blowers and ballast cleaners and, in his time, has seen many ‘big yellow machines’ come – and go. His view of Rhomberg Sersa’s Universal Materials Handling machine (UMH) is that it is “the Swiss Army knife of railway machinery for delivering material to and from site”. The UMH is part of Rhomberg Sersa’s ‘Machine Group’.

What to say about a machine that just dumps stuff?

Over the past three issues of the Rail Engineer we have looked at the Rhomberg Sersa system and the machines involved. Observant readers may have noticed that two machines in the system – the ITC and the MFS+ - have been covered in some detail. (Rail Engineer volumes 181 and 182).

The final machine, the UMH, appears at first to be a little difficult to write about. What is there to say about a machine that just dumps stuff?

Well, in fact, there’s quite a bit to tell, and a conversation with Tony is a quick way to find out - and to be corrected.

The UMH – Swiss Army Knife – does dump stuff, but it is the way in which it does the dumping that can inspire so many varied ways of planning a project.

A capacity of up to 400m³/hr To recap, the UMH is a rail-mounted, materials-handling machine. Unlike its companion machines the ITC and the MFS+, it does not have retractable caterpillar tracks. It is usually marshalled at the end of a rake of MFS wagons (the ones with a conveyor all the way along for loading and unloading aggregates and other material) – although it is compatible with many other items of rolling stock. It can travel at 60mph and has a RA1 route availability.

It appears to be a completely conventional wagon, kitted out with several systems of conveyor belts.

New or spent ballast is fed into the UMH from the conveyors of linear wagons at the rear of the machine, initially onto the lower handling conveyor. The UMH is thus directionally sensitive - which is another way of saying that it has to be marshalled the right way round within a train and the whole train has to be the right way round as well!

From the initial handling conveyor, the material is directed to one of three other conveyor systems. The upper conveyor can swing sideways - out to 90° to the machine, an arc of 180°. It has a reach of up to 5.6 metres either side of the centre line of the track that the machine is standing on and has a capacity of up to 400m³/hour (about 800 tonnes/hour). This conveyor can be used to feed materials into wagons on adjacent lines, to deliver bottom ballast for spreading by dozers or for the rapid distribution of material for civils works such as bank slips.

Maintenance runs The other two conveyor belts are on arms, one each side of the UMH and located towards the base of the machine. These can handle up to 200m³/ hour (about 400 tonnes/hour) and are used for the precise placement of bottom ballast, top stone and shoulders, as well as drainage-trench and landslip materials. These arms can swing out independently - up to 65° from the machine’s centreline - and they also have a reach of 5.6 metres from the centre of the track.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

21

22

PERMANENT WAY

There is the ITC, a derivative from the mining industry, used to excavate at the ‘coal face’ end of a job. There is the MFS+, a track and tracked machine that adds enormous flexibility to single line renewals planning, and the UMH for getting rid of ‘stuff’ or bringing ‘stuff’ to site – quickly.

The roll call

There is also a gravity system that can deliver accurate quantities of stone for maintenance runs or for top-up around the shoulders.

So far, mention has been made of ‘materials’. These can include both new or spent ballast, along with other coarse materials used in off-track projects. If the MFS and MFS+ vehicles can handle it then so can the UMH – very quickly and accurately.

Although confined to a railway track – it does not have caterpillars like the aforementioned MFS+ - the UMH needs not be a static piece of plant. On the contrary, it can spread materials whilst on the move. With an engineering supervisor coordinating the specialist operators throughout the train, the whole system can be used at a crawling pace to spread stone very precisely over long distances.

The role of Europe Part of Tony’s career involved travelling round Europe to explore how machines that had been developed and used over there could be brought across to the UK. Engineers in Europe have been using MFS+ vehicles, ITC machines and UMH machines for around twenty years.

Is there a natural translation of techniques? Well, it has to be acknowledged that the UK structure gauge proves to be a challenge on many occasions. Almost all of the kit from Europe has to be specially built or specially adapted, both to fit into the UK’s relatively constraining envelope and to meet today’s rigorous safety requirements, which is why all of the Rhomberg Sersa machines are fitted with dust-suppression systems.

Nevertheless, Rhomberg Sersa has invested in three types of specialist kit.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

Rhomberg Sersa has one ITC machine, two MFS+ machines and three UMH machines. With the exception of the ITC, these are all planned through the national NROL (Network Rail Online Logistics) system, so that a client can rely on everything that is needed for a project turning up – and turning up the right way round.

This series of Rail Engineer articles has identified the advantages of the machines in the Rhomberg Sersa Machine Group.

They all have their specific basic uses, but it is up to UK engineers to learn how these ‘normal’ tasks can be varied. This certainly applies to the UMH machine. It has a basic job – which is to dump stuff – but there are many ways in which its flexible methods of dumping can be used.

The key to innovative thinking Tony took pains to describe how materials for landslip remedial works can be speeded up with innovative planning, how the number of items of plant can be reduced and the number of staff at risk around these machines can be minimised when material is delivered in large quantities and delivered precisely.

Railway plant doesn’t have to be used only on track projects. Graded materials can back-fill drainage trenches or other construction without the disturbance that can be caused by conventional plant.

The UMH really is the Swiss Army Knife of railway engineering. If someone who has seen forty years of railway engineering says so, then take notice!

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

UMH

Universal Material Handling Vehicle

400m3 per hour and 5.6mtr belt reach

Precise placement of top or bottom ballast

Continuous output to or from a train of MFS wagons

Up to 400m³/hr discharge 5.6m to left or right

The UMH is a standard railway vehicle consisting of a collector belt, a swivelling conveyor, a mid-mounted chute delivery system and two ballasting belts arranged beneath the frame on both sides of the vehicle.

Bulk material from multiple MFS Universal Material Handling Vehicles can be discharged onto the collecting belt of the UMH and distributed through the three systems, depending on the required application.

Accurate and quick placement of bottom ballast from the adjacent line.

Accurate distribution of drainage trench materials and landslip backfill.

Transfer of material to open wagons on the adjacent line.

Precise distribution of top ballast.

Handles both new and spent ballast.

The key to innovative low risk materials handling solutions.

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

24

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY

MARK PHILLIPS

Blockade success at Guildford DESPITE THE LOCKDOWN

T

he track layout for the various junctions at Guildford, serving routes in several directions, were in need of scheduled renewal as a consequence of a level of underinvestment over a number of years. The switch and crossing work (S&C), in particular, was approaching life expiry and was displaying the inevitable increasing cost of maintenance. Several other work items in the surrounding area also needed addressing.

The Joint Alliance of Network Rail’s Wessex route and South Western Railway examined various alternatives for carrying out all this work. A series of long weekend possessions, of which 16 were estimated to be required, would have caused disruption to normal rail services for an extended period and would have been costly in its stop-start approach, with temporary reinstatements to ensure continuity of facilities after each weekend’s work.

Much better, decided Network Rail, to go for an extended blockade over and beyond the Easter weekend to get all the work done in one fell swoop. This would be done at a time when there would be less demand for the commuter services especially, as many workers would be taking time off for Easter and the school holiday.

Of course, completely unforeseen at the planning stage, the effects of the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown meant that there were almost no travellers. As it turned out, almost any dates could equally well have been chosen for the works!

The blockade overall was of ten days duration, but with a small component of it given back to traffic after four days. Apart from the renewal of all the S&C and some associated plain line, enabling the removal of five temporary speed restrictions - one of which was hardly temporary as it had been in force since 2016 - advantage was taken of the blockade to renew conductor rail, upgrade 41 track circuits, carry out some improvement works at Guildford station, renew wheel timbers on an underbridge and stabilise cutting slopes at a tunnel portal, along with several other miscellaneous works.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

Reballasting and track renewal just north of Guildford station.

Possession details The overall blockade was taken from 00:01 on the morning of Good Friday 10 April until 04:00 on Monday 20 April. The Cobham lines were reopened to traffic at 04:00 on Tuesday 14 April, enabling a limited train service to run from Platform 1 of Guildford station to London Waterloo. This service was not greatly used in practice, no doubt due, in large measure, to the coronavirus restrictions.

For the remainder of the blockade, the possession was defined in a series of seven ‘Parts’, each one being a slight modification of the overall geographical area needed for specific work items or signalling testing, but in essence creating a working area over all five routes radiating from Guildford - to Cobham, Dorking, Haslemere, Reading and Woking.

PERMANENT WAY Track renewals The work did not involve any remodelling of the layout. Apart from the removal of a redundant headshunt at Guildford station, the track replacement was entirely like for like.

All of the new S&C concrete panels were manufactured by VAE & Partners, preassembled at that company’s Doncaster works, then broken down into 101 modules for transport to site at Guildford by road transport, provided by Walker Haulage and Lawsons Haulage. All of the modules were delivered in advance and stacked at lineside on both sides of the running lines.

The lifting and installation of the S&C modules during the blockade was carried out using two Kirow rail cranes, with the assistance of twelve road-rail vehicles (RRVs). The overall layout comprised fourteen S&C units. The removal of the old and the replacement of the new took place over a 4½ day period, from 16:30 on 10 April through until 02:00 on 15 April.

In addition to the S&C renewal, 1,500 metres of plain line was renewed and some heavy maintenance work carried out intermittently throughout the blockade. Also, 1,200 metres of conductor rail was renewed.

Craig Lightheart, blockade director for Network Rail, told Rail Engineer that the work progressed well and in accordance with the programme with only two exceptions - both regarding engineering trains.

18 engineering trains had been planned in for the delivery and removal of materials. One of these trains was for the delivery of new conductor rail. Unfortunately, because of social distancing rules required for virus protection, this train was prohibited from running. Therefore, the only conductor rail renewal that could be carried out used material that was already on site prior to the blockade.

Slope regrading at south portal of Sand Tunnel.

The other, more significant problem, was that another engineering train, consisting of empty wagons for spoil loading, derailed at Hoo Junction in Kent on its way to site. This required the project team to juggle and repurpose some of the other trains to fill that gap.

Signalling work 41 track circuits were upgraded to EBI type, without change to the signalling design - again simply a like for like renewal. However, nine new location cases were installed as part of the rewiring scheme for the new track circuits.

THE EXTRA STRONG SYSTEM FOR MAXIMUM LOADS pontiSTRAIL - aluminum bearer and rubber panel, a combination for highest demands. ¬ tolerates vertical track position changes ¬ no bearing on the sleeper surface ¬ installation is possible without any machinery

¬ in combination with the 1,200 mm STRAIL inner panels > increased position stability and suitable for maximum loads ¬ pontiSTRAIL 713 and STRAIL outer panels use the same kerbstone > easy exchange for higher loads

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

25

26

PERMANENT WAY Slope stabilisation at Sand Tunnel Instability of the cutting slopes at the south portal of Sand Tunnel had led to a precautionary speed restriction since Christmas 2019.

The Easter blockade provided the ideal opportunity to rectify this problem.

The local geology here is such that the exposed slopes, consisting of friable sand, were eroding - slips of loose material were occurring that risked blocking the running lines. The problem existed on both sides of the line but was more significant on the Up side.

The solution adopted was to regrade the slopes and install soil nailing with deep rock anchors to hold mesh down over the slopes.

Permission was obtained from the University of Law, on the Up side of the line, to use its grounds as a temporary access for the slope works. From there, machinery could work from the top of the cutting slope and a scaffolding stairway was installed for staff access to and from track level. The soil nailing was carried out by abseiling with the assistance of RRVs. During the regrading of the slope on the Up side, an archaeological discovery of significant interest to local historians was made - a sandstone cave made up of several sections ranging from 0.3 metres to about 0.7 metres high. The cave may once have been much larger, but only this small piece survived the digging of the railway cutting through the hill in the early 1840s.

Initial findings by a specialist archaeological contractor suggest that it was a later medieval shrine or hermitage associated with the early 14th century chapel of St Catherine, the ruins of which are situated on the hill nearby. It may even have earlier origins as a site of cult activity, due to its pre-14th century name of Drakehill - ‘Hill of the Dragon’.

Mark Killick, Network Rail Wessex route director, said: “This is an unexpected and fascinating discovery that helps to visualise and understand the rich history of the area. A full and detailed record of

Lawson’s Haulage are proud to be associated with the successful Guildford Rail Project.

SPECIALIST RAIL HAULAGE SERVICES ACROSS THE UK

Tel: 01900 823061 traffic@lawsonshaulage.co.uk www.lawsonshaulagecockermouth.co.uk Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

the cave has been made and every effort will be made to preserve elements where possible during the regrading of the delicate and vulnerable sandstone cutting.”

Miscellaneous work Taking advantage of the 10-day blockade, Network Rail cleared its workbank in the area. This included: » Upgrading point heaters; » Rationalising hook switches; » Removing several large trees; » Commissioning a new transformer in an equipment room; » Resurfacing Guildford station footbridge; » Painting parts of the station buildings; » Replacing wheel timbers on the River Wey underbridge on the line to Haslemere.

Implications of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak Obviously, all the planning and resourcing for the actual work and the blockade, including bus replacement services and other alternative arrangements for rail travellers, had been completed long before it would be known that the world would be hit by the virus outbreak. Nevertheless, it was deemed important to stick with the Easter blockade plan, if at all possible.

In the last two or three weeks leading up to Easter, the Joint Alliance team had to review the implications from the COVID-19 outbreak and determine what changes needed to be made to enable the work to go ahead and yet still be in compliance with the government restrictions and precautionary arrangements.

Mark Killick explained what these changes were and related how it had all worked in practice throughout the blockade. He prepared a briefing video to be shown to all staff who would be working on the blockade, explaining the importance of the work still going ahead and why it could be defined as “essential” activity.

It was necessary to change or modify some of the planned activities to ensure that they could be carried out while observing the social distancing rules. Extra supervision would be provided to keep an eye on the social distancing working in practice and to take action immediately to remind staff if they forgot temporarily. There were even “social distancing champions” appointed, who would step in and stop an activity if necessary, then ask for a “take five” before recommencing work.

Back-up staff were incorporated into the planning, in case of anyone falling ill with the virus. In particular, certain specialist and critical staff for whom, in the event of becoming ill, might not be easily replaced, were mandatorily isolated in the days leading

PERMANENT WAY up to the blockade. A local hotel was able to remain open to accommodate staff who would have otherwise had excessive travelling distances and the hotel also provided food throughout for those staff.

Two-metre spacings were marked out for signing in procedures, hand gel and good hand washing facilities were provided on site.

One example of thorough application of social distancing was at the Sand Tunnel worksite, where access to track level via the scaffold stairway meant that, if someone was descending, a person going up would have to wait to avoid passing at close-quarters.

Staff were encouraged to declare any encounter with the virus, for example, if there was any hint of infection within their own household. In fact, one such instance did occur, and the staff member concerned had to cease working on the blockade for the remainder of its duration.

Resourcing On a worksite of this size and complexity, a number of contractors and specialist subcontractors were employed.

The track work was undertaken by Network Rail’s own Southern capital delivery track team, working with Colas Rail. On the various shifts, between 50 and 70 staff were on site throughout the S&C renewal works.

Sonic Rail Services and VolkerRail jointly carried out the upgrading of the track circuits, having up to 70 staff employed. Sonic provided the electrical feeds and the systems isolating the track circuits from the DC electric track equipment and VolkerRail provided the track circuits.

Cleshar Contract Services renewed the conductor rail with 12 staff. Osborne, Network Rail’s framework contractor, carried out the work at Sand Tunnel with 20 staff, and the resurfacing of the station

Welding in Guildford platforms. footbridge. Directly employed Network Rail works delivery staff carried out the station painting and the wheel timbers for the River Wey underbridge was resourced with 15 staff from the same group.

Kier commissioned the new transformer. RRVs were supplied by Quattro for the S&C work and by Readypower for the conductor rail work.

Appraisal When rail services are able to return to normal ridership, regular travellers from and through Guildford should begin to notice improved ride quality and reliability with the removal of speed restrictions and the updating of the signalling system.

But they will have hardly been inconvenienced or noticed that the area was given a discreet and well worthwhile £10 million investment, and all despite the virus!

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

27

28

PERMANENT WAY

Track renewal at Botley

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

PERMANENT WAY

A ballast train passes slowly through the work site.

O

ver the late May bank holiday and the following week, South Rail Systems Alliance (Colas Rail, Network Rail and AECOM) engineers replaced just under one mile (1,400 metres) of single-line track between Fareham and Botley on the Eastleigh-Fareham line, which forms part of the route from London to Portsmouth via Basingstoke.

The track was life-expired and, with a reduced number of trains running due to the Covid-19 crisis, this was an ideal opportunity to do the work. It was also school half term, so the small number of passengers who were using the line was further reduced.

Those passengers who did wish to travel were bussed between Eastleigh and Fareham, but those buses often only had singlefigure passengers on them, vindicating Network Rail’s choice of timing.

The line was to be closed for a week, from Saturday 23 May until Saturday 30th.

As the track to be renewed was a single-track railway - it had

been reduced from double to single track in 1973 - the normal practice of having supplies and equipment on the adjacent track was not possible. The line would have to be completely removed, dug out, new ballast placed and then new track laid.

This would require the use of an NTC (new track construction) machine, which can lay sleepers ahead of itself, feed the rails into place and clip it up, ready for the machine itself to use that track as it moved forward.

In preparing for the work, Covid-19 had to be taken into account. All workers were instructed on the importance of distancing.

High Motive, which provided a 24-hour service for duplex

communications, back-to-back radios and RPE (respiratory powered equipment), as well as the MyZone proximity warning system for RRV (roadrail vehicle) exclusion zones, had sterilisation units on site so that equipment could be cleaned between shifts.

Work began in the early hours of Saturday 23 May. Much of the first day was taken up with cutting the old track into panels and lifting those out, with sleepers still attached, to be piled up alongside the line for later removal by train once the new track had been laid.

By the Saturday evening the old track was out and two new rails were being laid alongside the excavated trackbed, ready for the NTC machine when it started to lay track. The individual lengths of rail were welded together in continuous lengths.

The route included both track in the open and in Tapnage tunnel, (122 yards - 111 metres). Although the tunnel would require lighting, it was too short to need forced ventilation, although workers needed to be even more aware of the dangers of ballast dust, as well as having to keep two metres apart due to Covid-19!

NIGEL WORDSWORTH

(Left) Road-rail vehicle tidying up. (Right) Scrap track panels awaiting recovery, since removed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

29

30

PERMANENT WAY

The NTC machine lays new concrete sleepers while, at the same time, feeding the previously laid rails into position.

Making the final connection.

Balfour Beatty’s NTC machine started work in the early hours of Sunday 24 May. At the front of the machine, two small ‘caterpillar’ tracks support a conveyor gantry that brings concrete (in this case) sleepers from the body of the machine and lays them in place, 600mm apart. It can place 10 sleepers per minute, although, with breaks and adjustments, it tends to lay around 1.4km (1,530 yards) per day coincidentally, the same length as this track renewal.

Sleepers are supplied from a rake of special flatbed wagons pulled by and behind the NTC, with semi-automated ‘pickers’ running on rails along the edges of the flatbed wagons, bringing pallets of sleepers to the NTC and loading them into its hopper.

Once the sleepers are placed, the rail lying alongside the track is guided by a series of rollers, located on the NTC itself, into position and laid between the preinstalled clips. The rail is then clipped up before the wheels of the NTC machine run over the newly laid track.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

The whole process is continuous and the entire length of new track, including through Tapnage tunnel, was completed in one 24-hour session.

Once the track was in place, the top layer of ballast was placed over it - the bottom ballast supports the track while the top ballast, above the level of the base of the sleepers, retains it in place.

One of Balfour Beatty’s tampers then took its first run over the new track. This process compacts and consolidates the ballast and also positions

the track so that it is straight and level. Over the next two days, four more tamping runs would be carried out, each one improving the quality of the track so it would be in the best possible condition once the railway was handed back.

Over the same period of time, the rails themselves were stressed and trial running took place. Then it was just a question of tidying up, removing the old track panels and any other waste material, and handing the whole section back to the operator for Saturday morning.

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY

Getting rail drainage BACK ON TRACK

W

hat if there was a tried and tested solution to speed up trackside drainage times by a factor of 10, simultaneously reducing installation costs and improving site safety by halving the depth of trenches and the amount of crushed stone required? This method has been adopted by the highways industry for over 20 years, but fellow major linear asset engineers in the rail industry are yet to realise the same advantages.

This winter’s record rainfall and widespread flooding brought the issue of trackside drainage into sharp focus. Large sections of the network were inundated, flooding tracks and causing numerous embankment slips.

The scale of disruption highlights the importance of effective drainage systems.

They must be able to resist high static and dynamic loads and be fully maintainable over a design life in excess of 60 years to provide the best whole-life cost.

As most drainage systems in the UK are installed during remediation, where time is limited, speed of installation is also a very significant factor.

Traditional cess drains Current trackside drainage is reliant on cess drains, consisting of cut trenches, filled with crushed stone, below the sleeper level, either side of the track.

Excavating traditional cess trenches for drainage pipes and lining the sides of the trench with geotextile, prior to backfilling with crushed stone, is a relatively expensive and laborious process. Trenches deeper than 1.5 metres must be shored for support, prolonging the time that ‘boots are on the ballast’. Then there is the cost of disposing of the arisings and procuring new stone.

In addition, crushed stone is not a particularly efficient drainage material, since it interlocks when compacted, leaving very little void space for water flow.

Alternative solution The realisation that it is the void space within a layer of crushed stone that achieves the drainage flow led to the development and specification of Fin drains or Fildrains, polymeric cores that have a high void ratio.

ABG Fildrains are a preformed drainage layer comprising a highstrength, lightweight HDPE (high-density polyethylene) cuspated core, laminated with geotextile.

Fildrain has a flow capacity many times that of traditional crushed stone, owing to the unique open structure created by the dimpled core profile, allowing unhindered water flow.

The cuspated core of Fildrain at just 7mm thick - when tested under simulated site conditions - achieves an in-plane flow capacity of 1.0 l/m/s at a hydraulic gradient of 1. This is eight times that of a 500mm layer of drainage stone. It is the reduction in layer thickness, and the narrower trench widths required, that enables the geocomposite drain to achieve project time and cost savings, reducing closure times and the number of trackside deliveries required.

Fildrain has many applications in railway cuttings, cess and embankment drainage and is BBA approved, meeting requirements for load resistance, maintenance and fast installation. It is simply installed into narrow trenches, with the excavated soil replaced as the backfill and then topped with a thin layer of crushed stone. Fildrain is supplied in a range of heights to suit each application and for easy connection to existing drainage systems.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

31

32

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY

Parisian politics DIVIDE DEAL FOR BRITISH STEEL DANIEL PYKE

E

arly March was a turbulent time for the UK, with the unfolding virus situation spreading ever closer and rumours about lockdown timing were abound.

However, this was not the only important news being watched from China, especially for those involved in supplying rail and steel in the UK.

On 9 March, a long-awaited agreement was made by a Chinese company (Jingye) to buy beleaguered British Steel, which supplies over 90 per cent of the rail for Network Rail. However, some may say this deal has more politics surrounding it than an entire season of ‘The West Wing’.

Disused blast furnaces mean Hayange is dependent on imported steel.

Greybull boom - and bust In June 2016, Greybull Capital purchased British Steel from Tata Steel for £1. The operations purchased included mills in Middlesbrough and Skinningrove, Teesside, and Hayange, France, as well as its steel production plants and mills in Scunthorpe. Also included in the sale were a York-based consultancy business and an engineering company.

In an apparent miracle business turnaround, the steel operations went from losing £79 million in Financial Year (FY)16 to a profit of £47 million in FY17, growing further still in FY18.

In October 2017, the group expanded with the acquisition of FNsteel, a Dutch wire processing company, adding just under 300 employees to the workforce.

In May 2019, a deal was announced by the parent company to purchase Ascoval, a distressed French steelmaker with around 270 employees. This deal sourced 47 million Euros from the French state and local government bodies to match 47 million euros of funding from British Steel’s parent company.

From initial appearances, the future looked bright - almost as bright as the company’s orange logo.

All was not quite as rosy as appearances portrayed. Just weeks after posting its record profits of £68 million, the company needed emergency government loans

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

of £120 million just to stay afloat. Only two weeks later, further emergency government loans of £30 million were requested, but this time were not provided, and British Steel Ltd was forced into liquidation on 22 May 2019.

There may, in future, be a thorough investigation into just how a seemingly profitable company found itself in such dire straits, but none has yet been announced due to the sale process being carried out. What has come to light so far makes for eyewatering reading for those left picking up the pieces - largely the taxpayer and the employees.

Large high-interest loans (nine per cent above bank rates) were made to the company from its offshore parent, requiring a £17 million interest payment each year. A directors’ pay-out of £3.3 million was recorded in 2018 and Greybull charged a £3 million management fee each year.

Rail cooling at Scunthorpe, UK.

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY Perhaps the biggest questions lie around how carbon credits, essential for the business operation, were sold to keep the company afloat. This built up a £120 million bill it had no way of funding with no escape from the deadline. In essence, the company was loaded with debt until it could be hidden no longer, and its collapse was inevitable.

Unusually, despite being forced into liquidation, British Steel was permitted to continue to trade, limping along in a government-assisted liquidation limbo, whilst a buyer was sought for all its operations. Due to how the business was structured, only the UK steel operations were forced into liquidation, with the consultancy business, and its French rail and Dutch wire operations, continuing to trade as normal.

Some may ask: “Why was the UK steel business allowed to continue to trade?”

Part of the answer lies in the fact that many of the steel plant operations cannot be simply switched off without incurring massive rebuild costs, which would have crippled any potential sale of the whole business. Blast furnaces cannot simply be switched on and off.

Turkish interest In August 2019, the first glimpse of progress in the sale of the business became visible. After considering several bids, a Turkish company Oyak (via a holding company Ataer) emerged as the first-choice buyer for the steel business.

Portrayed by the media as the Turkish military pension fund, the group also happened to own the largest Turkish steel company.

In a separate transaction on 30 August, the consultancy business (TSP Projects) was sold to Systra as an ongoing business to continue to operate in both rail and other construction project areas.

In October 2019, after 10 weeks of exclusive negotiations, the Oyak bid stalled amid reports that British Steel’s suppliers had refused to accept lower prices, sinking the deal. The Brexit brinkmanship being played through parliament may have also played its part, along with emerging allegations of corruption and mistreatment of workers, as well as uncomfortable links with Turkish military actions in Syria, all tarnishing the deal’s appearance.

Chinese offer With the government desperate to avoid massive job losses in a key Brexit-voting constituency on the run up to a December general election, a new surprise contender emerged from China - Jingye.

Jingye group is a conglomerate of companies including steel, pharmaceuticals and hotels, led by a former Communist party official, Li Gangpo. Jingye emerged the hot favourite to save British Steel, securing a government support package of £300 million in the process by promising to invest £1.2 billion to reinvigorate the UKbased steel maker. Jingye offered to buy the whole of the remaining British Steel group, which included its French rail mill and Dutch wire operations.

However, the deal was not yet done, and more twists and turns remained on the road, or indeed railway, to redemption.

The deal required approval from various government and EU bodies - and the thought of China owning key strategic industry did not sit comfortably with some.

In mid-November, the European steel association (EUROFER) raised objections to the deal, arguing it was yet another example of Chinas practice of “steel dumping” into the European Union, and that the UK government support as part of the deal might flout state-aid rules.

Rails ready for despatch.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

33

34

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY

Rolling rails at Scunthorpe.

French politics (and Greybull again) They say a week is a long time in politics - the same is true in steel sometimes, too. Just a week after the European steel association publicly threatened to block the steel deal, a rail-related coup also emerged.

Ascoval, the small, French electric steelmaker bought out of administration by the owners of British Steel (Greybull) just weeks before the UK steel business entered liquidation, pulled off a seemingly impossible ask. Ascoval announced it had secured a four-year deal with French state-owned railway group SNCF to supply over half a million tonnes of steel starting in September 2020. The steel was, of course, to be supplied to the Hayange rail mill.

Whilst, on the surface, that may initially sound like good news for the rescue of British Steel, the direct opposite was true.

Due to the fact only the UK steel operations of British Steel were in liquidation, the Hayange rail plant remained solvent and owned by Greybull. So, a governmentsupported steelmaker, controlled by Greybull, won a multi-year contract for the majority of steel supply to the French railway via a rail mill also owned by Greybull.

It is worth noting that, when the contract was announced, Ascoval did not produce rail steel and, indeed, did not have the production machines needed to supply it.

The reader can decide whether that sounds a little unusual.

Days later, in December, adverts emerged in the press for the sale of a rail mill based in North East France. It was not too difficult to guess which mill this was. These adverts were not placed by the liquidator but were, reportedly, placed by well-meaning local managers eager to secure a Plan B should the Jingye deal fail. Well, that was the story.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

As might be expected, both Jingye and British Steel personnel were furious at the unfolding French revolt. UK representation was installed on the French board of directors in short order, but the damage was done. Jingye founder Li Ganpo even took to the French press to put forward plans to develop the site, attempting to woo the unions to secure backing for his bid for the plant. The French rail business had remained consistently profitable and so formed an attractive and important part of the deal for Jingye, as well as being a base within the European Union to reduce rail business Brexit risks.

In January, just hours before Brexit day, another trade row raged in the halls of politics. It was reported that French finance minister Bruno Le Maire told Chancellor Sajid Javid the Paris government would not sign off on a deal and there was “no way” the £50 million sale of British Steel to a Chinese buyer would be supported by the French government, landing a heavy blow to the deal’s chances of success.

Takeover details Later in January, the UK workers were presented with the stark sacrifices any purchase by Jingye would involve. It was dressed up as a negotiation between unions and the new owners, but only one side had any real power. The deal would require a further reduction in workforce of around 450 jobs and a significant erosion of terms and conditions. Indeed, by negotiating to protect blue-collar workers’ pay, the unions negotiated up the number of job losses required, and white-collar staff were hit with a well disguised 10-12 per cent reduction in their benefits over two years.

Reheated steel ready for rolling at Hayange, France.

PERMANENT STATIONS WAY

Rails cooling – Hayange.

On 9 March 2020, some 292 days after British Steel (Ltd) went into liquidation, the sale of British Steel’s assets was completed, saving 3,200 jobs and with Jingye pledging to invest £1.2 billion over the coming decade.

However, the rescue left a bitter taste in the mouths of the 450 people not offered employment at the new company with an old name. Hundreds of workers, given at best a week’s notice, were dropped into the job market abyss just days before the Covid lockdown commenced. Those trawling the job adverts were further dismayed to see British Steel procurement vacancies listed with desirable attributes including speaking Mandarin, reinforcing rumours that sourcing from the far east was a key cost-saving strategy for the company.

On many fronts, it was not quite the company-saving deal originally envisaged.

It did not include several parts of the UK steel distribution business, totalling around 100 employees, which were closed or sold separately. In addition, and importantly for this readership, it did not include the profitable French rail business, totalling around 450 employees. Both changes turned colleagues into competitors overnight.

Looking deeper into the rail business divorce, it was a difficult time for both British and French rail businesses. The French rail business was rebranded and relaunched as “France Rail Industry” celebrating its departure from British Steel in its initial announcements.

However, it soon found itself baulking at the new commercial price for steel supply from Scunthorpe.

The result was all steel flows (around 400,000 tonnes per year) from Scunthorpe to the French rail mill stopped and have, at the time of writing, not resumed, nearly three months later.

With only a few months’ steel supply held, the French rail mill is now increasingly reliant on imported steel

from elsewhere. This steel is shipped from either Germany, which is of insufficient size to produce the longest rails customers want, or from low-cost sources in India. The French steel maker Ascoval does not yet have the capability to supply. It is somewhat ironic that a deal which was partly scuppered by French politics over concerns of handing control of a strategic asset to Chinese owners, now relies on imports from India and Germany instead of from the UK.

Current situation In a quirk of Covid fate, the lockdown caused the closure of the French rail facility for three weeks. It has since only partially reopened, whereas the UK operations remained in production. This has eased the short-term steel sourcing supply challenge, at least temporarily, for the French rail mill whilst its final buyers are decided and the necessary French government approvals sought.

It is rumoured that the deal should be completed by August.

Arguably, British Steel’s UK operations came off worst in the separation. It needs to find a profitable home for the steel volumes that were destined for France, quite a challenge in the current climates and doubly so once outside the EU, with whatever trade barriers are erected.

The UK rail mill, although arguably more efficient, does not offer the breadth of products that the older but better-

invested French facility does. Due to the split in businesses, British Steel lost around 60 per cent of its rail capacity but over 90 per cent of its product range and the entirety of its heat-treated rail capability. Although investment in the Scunthorpe rail mill has been promised, which will add a heat treatment facility, no date for the project has yet been announced, leaving it at a significant disadvantage if trying to compete on the world stage.

Looking at the impacts on the UK’s rail industry, they are numerous but not all negative. The potential loss of 300,000 tonnes of regular freight to the continent each year is likely to put a dent in the freight statistics - at least in the metals area. However, the extra European steel freight flows will offset this, for continental operators at least. UK rail networks, both large and small, also get a new rail supplier (Hayange) on their doorstep, with proven routes into the UK, which will be eager to make its mark on the UK market.

Network Rail perhaps gets to enjoy three benefits. First, the second reincarnation of British Steel ensures that it will have locally available rail and it will continue to enjoy the levels of service with which other suppliers cannot currently compete.

Secondly, the promised investment in UK rail production facilities will likely bring greater levels of product choice.

And lastly, but by no means least, Network Rail now has another approved supplier to source from on its doorstep, reducing reliance on one key supplier.

Whether, and to what degree, the last option is exercised is largely down to politics once again.

In the current turbulent times with Brexit deals looming and protectionism rife, it is a brave person who can predict the future fortunes of British Steel, but it will certainly be an interesting one to watch.

Steel blooms from Scunthorpe awaiting rolling at Hayange.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

35

36

s ' l i a r s s g o n Cr nalli FEATURE

Sig VE CLI SELL KES

Plumstead portal near Abbey Wood station.

Platform screen doors at Liverpool Street.

e g n e l l a Ch

C

rossrail has many complex systems but providing the entire route with a new signalling system is one of the biggest challenges. It is a highly complex arrangement, with many interfaces between different new and legacy systems, although final testing is now underway.

It is easy to forget that the genesis of Crossrail dates back nearly 30 years. Even when the provisional go ahead was given around 12 years ago, many of the signalling systems that we now take for granted did not then exist. The option of ERTMS Level 3 is available only in very limited form even today and ETCS Level 2 with ATO superimposed was just a concept.

The choice as to how train command and control would be achieved had to be based on projections for established technology.

The result is a bit of a ‘mish mash’, but similar situations have existed in cities abroad with a workable solution being obtained.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

The Signalling Elements Key to the first decision was the need to provide for 24tph (trains per hour) initially in the central core section, with a longer-term timetabled capability for 30tph. To achieve this performance level, it requires ATO (Automatic Train Operation) which at that time could only be provided by a proprietary CBTC (Communications-Based Train Control) system, the result of which was a contract with Siemens for its Trainguard product. This will also be used on the Abbey Wood branch, since it is, in effect, a terminating station for the Crossrail service, which will be known as the Elizabeth line once it enters service.

At the other extremities, Crossrail trains will share tracks with Great Western Railway and Heathrow Express services out of Paddington to Reading and Heathrow, and with Great Eastern services from Liverpool Street to Shenfield.

Neither of these routes will be suitable for the Trainguard technology.

From Paddington westwards, the normal train protection is provided by TPWS and AWS. However, another complication has been the existence of the trial ATP (Automatic Train Protection) system, dating back to British Rail days, which remains in operation for some of

FEATURE the GWR train fleet. This also provided the protection on the Heathrow branch and, at one time, it was thought Crossrail trains might have to be fitted with that system, which in view of its age and increasing obsolescence would not have been a good idea.

The authorities ruled that something better than TPWS would be needed on the Heathrow branch and thus it was decided that ETCS Level 2 should be provided. That meant Crossrail trains having to be ETCS fitted, a sensible decision as this represents the future of train control for the whole country.

As well as the ETCS provision between Airport Junction and Heathrow, ETCS Level 2 is now being fitted to the GW main line back to Paddington as an overlay to existing lineside signals, with trials about to commence.

Out of Liverpool Street, it is TPWS and AWS for the foreseeable future, but, eventually, this route will also be converted to ETCS. So, as well as CBTC, Crossrail trains have to be fitted with ETCS, TPWS and AWS, with automatic changeover between the systems at the appropriate point. Each of the systems are well proven in service, but it is the changeover that has caused the big technical challenge.

To keep the terminology in ‘ETCS-speak’, the legacy systems are known as National Train Control (NTC), and the signalling level as L-NTC (Level NTC).

Integrating the signalling In addition to the different signalling systems, the control of the Crossrail route will be split across three control centres. On the GW main line, this is from the Thames Valley Signalling Centre at Didcot. The Crossrail core, including to Abbey Wood, will have a new control centre contained within Network Rail’s Rail Operating Centre (ROC) at Romford.

The GE line, which is currently controlled from Liverpool Street IECC, will eventually transfer to the Romford ROC as well.

Route control centre at Romford.

The actual emergence of Crossrail into the open air is at Westbourne Park in the west and Pudding Mill Lane in the east. The changeover has to take place within these localities. Not only has the system to change but the driver’s display (DMI) must also change.

There are essentially three modes of operation: » L-NTC (AWS/TPWS), which represents conventional driving, with the standard AWS ‘sunflower’ and TPWS indicators/buttons shown on the right-hand side of the DMI; » ETCS Level 2, with detailed Movement Authority (MA) information shown in the ‘Planning Area’ on the right-hand side of the DMI; » L-NTC (CBTC), where the normal mode will be Automatic (ATO) and the DMI will display relevant information such as Dwell Time count down and Platform Edge Door status. The right-hand side of the DMI is normally blank when in CBTC operation.

The transition and changeover will be ordered by the train passing over a succession of balise groups. These transmit data to the train in the form of ‘telegrams’ containing specific ‘packets’, such as the Level Transition Order packet.

JARGON Some additional acronyms explained » ETCS: European Train Control System - modern in-cab signalling - in three Levels of functionality » ERTMS: European Rail Traffic Management System - ETCS’ big brother with GSM-R communications and (in theory) traffic management included. » TPWS: Train Protection & Warning System, introduced from 1997. » AWS: Automatic Warning System, introduced from 1956 though based on earlier systems. » ROGS: Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety Regulations) 2006. » IRSE: Institution of Railway Signal Engineers.

Map of the route showing the different signalling systems employed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

37

38

FEATURE

DMI displays for (left) TPWS, (centre) ETCS Level 2 and (right) CBTC.

Coming eastbound towards Westbourne Park, the first balise group will order CBTC (1st priority) with TPWS as 2nd priority. Next there is a TPWS train stop to ensure that a train still in TPWS mode cannot proceed into the CBTC area. Finally, a second balise group will again order CBTC (1st priority) but this time with ETCS Level 0 as 2nd priority. ETCS Level 0 is the degraded mode of operation in the central core so it needs to be available for the driver to select at any time whilst in this area.

During these transitions, the driver will be prompted to acknowledge them by pressing a flashing button on the DMI. If no acknowledgement is made within a transition time, the train will be service braked to a stop.

A similar progression will occur for a train approaching Pudding Mill Lane in the westward direction.

In the other direction, at Westbourne Park, westbound trains will have the CBTC disabled once the first GW signal has been passed. At Pudding Mill Lane, an overlay section has been created between there and Stratford and the MA for an eastbound train must align with the lineside signals.

A further transition is needed at Airport Junction where a train bound for Heathrow operating in AWS/TPWS will pass balises to firstly switch to ETCS Level 1 and shortly after to ETCS Level 2. The progression from Level 1 to Level 2 is needed in order to give sufficient time for the radio session to establish. Should the ETCS Level 2 fail in the Heathrow tunnel, the agreed degraded mode fall back is TPWS/AWS. Although not regularly used for train services, the Crossrail line at Abbey Wood does have a connection to the North Kent line, which will be used for engineering trains and any other stock movements. This too must have a signalling interface, although it is likely that trains will stop whilst the onward signalling is instigated.

The Crossrail rolling stock One fortunate feature of Crossrail is that only a single type of train will be used. These are the Bombardier Class 345 ‘Aventras’ in a nine-car formation. The first of these entered service on the Liverpool Street to Shenfield route in June 2017, but they are currently restricted to seven cars due to platform lengthening work not being completed.

Although equipped with ETCS, this has been disabled and the trains operate only on AWS/ TPWS.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE The next introduction was from Paddington to Reading on 29 July 2019. These trains have both ETCS and CBTC operational, as well as AWS/TPWS, to allow for test running on to the Heathrow branch and the Crossrail central core.

The knowledge gained from ETCS testing to Heathrow has been put to good use when retrofitting the Class 387 trains that will be taking over the Paddington to Heathrow service.

ORR authorisation was given on the 6 May for the Class 345 trains to operate in passenger traffic to Heathrow, the compliance to ETCS standards having been proven.

Installing the signalling equipment on to the Class 345s has not been difficult as it was always part of the design. The DMI is a single unit that configures to the different types of signalling. The AWS/TPWS readers are mounted on the bogie, the balise antenna is bolted to the underframe and the on-board equipment cabinet is located behind the driver’s console.

An Ethernet backbone provides the transmission system for the signalling and other on-board functions that interface with it. The CBTC communication between train and wayside will be by Wi-Fi, this being considered appropriate for an all-underground railway. For ETCS, the normal GSM-R radio link is provided.

The trains are being maintained at a new depot at Old Oak Common, commissioned in May 2018. This includes an internal signalling system provided by Atkins using the ElectroLogIXS interlocking, which is also at the existing Ilford depot.

Testing the signalling and the interfaces As can be imagined, testing such a complex signalling arrangement could never be progressed on site. The solution was to start with laboratory testing, involving several labs in different parts of the world including Bombardier in Stockholm and Delhi, Siemens in Paris, Braunschweig and Chippenham, Mors Smitt (part of Wabtec) in Crewe and Burton, Alstom for ETCS interoperability and a further lab for Customer Information integration.

All of these allow remote access, but getting results understood across all of them has been something of a challenge and, with hindsight, better lab integration would have helped.

Secondly, testing has taken place on the Old Dalby test track (Rail Innovation & Development Centre) at Melton Mowbray, near Nottingham, where 9km of the route has been equipped with balises to dynamically test the transition sequences. The trackside signalling is connected remotely to Bombardier’s Radio Block Centre simulator and Test Control terminal.

With offsite testing completed and the transitions proven, the current work is dynamic testing on the central core section, including degraded mode operation and ARS (Automatic Route Setting). Linkage to other subsystems in the tunnel have to be tested, which include platform screen doors, on board train alarms, overhead line monitoring and tunnel ventilation.

All of these can affect the granting of a MA and, if any onboard fire alarm is activated, then the doors will not close at a station.

Particularly important is the ventilation system, which works on the principle of pull and push of air. Split into 44 sections, if a section fails with a train present, a second train will be prevented from entering that section if the braking curve permits. If the train cannot stop, then the adjacent two ventilation sections are combined and the second train can proceed until both

Hardware mounted on the train: (left) on the bogie and (right) under the frame.

Crossrail's route control centre at Romford.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

39

40

FEATURE

Abbey Wood station.

trains are clear of the failed area. Until the fault is rectified, the system can operate normally by joining the failed section to an adjacent one.

Testing the west and east fringes is ongoing.

Other interfaces include ATS (Automatic Train Supervision), RCS (Radio Control Supervision), ATC (the linkage to the train propulsion and braking systems) and the communications and information systems at stations, all of which need to be proven before the line can open. As a final sign off, acceptance of all the baseline software configurations and assurance documentation has to be completed in line with ROGS requirements.

As a separate exercise, but with implications for Crossrail operation, testing of a Class 345 from Airport Junction to Acton under ETCS control took place at the end of May. This is the second stage of Network Rail’s three-stage

trackside ETCS deployment from Heathrow to Paddington. Depending on the date that Crossrail actually opens, it may well be that westbound trains will transition immediately to ETCS at Westbourne Park.

Final thoughts Media publicity has not always been kind to Crossrail. With a much-publicised opening set for December 2018, there were red faces all round when it became clear this was never a reality. Various dates have been put forward since then, but it now looks as if it will be 2021 before passenger services commence. The complex signalling may have been one reason for the delay, but station fitting out has also been a factor.

All this adverse publicity will be quickly forgotten once the trains are running with many new journey opportunities.

Could the signalling have been simpler? The Thameslink solution using ETCS with an ATO overlay was considered, but modelling indicated that this would be unlikely to achieve the 30tph requirement when used in conjunction with platform screen doors.

Regardless, hindsight is a wonderful thing and the team are confident that the now almostcompleted system will give years of reliable and consistent service for years to come.

Tom Godfrey from Bombardier and Rory Mitchell from Crossrail recently spoke on this subject at a meeting of the IRSE London & SE section, and much of this article is based on their presentations.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE

RAILWAY

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

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

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

Structural Precast for Railways

www.staubli.com/electrical

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

41

42

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

Unlocking

INNOVATION ONLINE

L

ast year’s Leeds Digital Festival saw 25,000 attendees across 240 events with 750 speakers in 96 venues. The event was to be even bigger this year. With the COVID-19 lockdown this was not to be. However, the event was not cancelled. Instead, as befitting a digital event, it was transformed into a virtual festival with over 80 sessions.

Richard Jones, third down, opens the webinars.

This included the Railway Industry Association (RIA)’s Unlocking Innovation event “Digital journeys for rail passengers and freight”. Instead of a one-day event, this became five one-hour webinars during the week commencing 20 April.

Each of these was hosted by Richard Jones, RIA’s senior technical and innovation manager, and had around 100 participants.

RIA’s Unlocking Innovation events have been run for ten years. They aim to inform suppliers about industry challenges and help them

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

respond by encouraging collaboration with research centres such as the UK’s Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN). They also explain sources of funding available as well as offering SMEs the opportunity to pitch their ideas and capabilities.

This first on-line event generally did meet these objectives, although there was no exhibition or opportunity to network, as is normally the case. Since physical interaction is necessary for suppliers to build and maintain trust, it was felt that, in a post COVID world, there is unlikely to be a large-scale shift to video conferencing.

Richard pointed out that the aim is to refresh existing supply chains and attract new suppliers.

For this reason, Monday’s seminar was for those new to the industry. The rest of the week’s programme was: » Tuesday - better journeys for passengers; » Wednesday - better freight services; » Thursday - Mobility as a service; » Friday - a better transport system for Leeds.

Each webinar started with keynote speakers presenting the challenges, followed by companies pitching their capabilities.

FEATURE Monday - introducing the industry Richard Jones made it clear that railways are not just a means of transport - they are a major industry, supporting 600,000 jobs and producing £36 billion gross value-added per year. He described the structure of the industry, explaining that relationships were primarily contractual with penalties for train delays. He felt that this could be a barrier to innovation and often resulted in a silo mentality.

However, over recent years, the railway is becoming ever-more digitised as assets, old and new, are being instrumented and monitored.

There is also a huge conversion programme to digitise railway signalling and control it from a small number of operating centres. As a result, vast amounts of data are produced which must be managed effectively, though this can facilitate innovation as it can easily move between silos.

Karl Butler-Garnham, Network Rail’s research and development programme manager for future communications and train control, emphasised this point.

He felt that the opportunities of the digital revolution had to be grasped to increase asset reliability and improve train performance. In this respect, Network Rail’s £357 million research and development programme offered unprecedented opportunities.

He advised that his team is working with hundreds of partners to deliver this programme and stressed that this is part of wider government industrial strategy. It also received European funding from the Shift2Rail programme, of which Network Rail is a member.

He emphasised that Network Rail welcomed research pioneers and encouraged businesses to visit www.networkrail. co.uk/challenge-statements to understand what was required.

In the first ‘elevator pitch’, David Davey of Engineering Integration explained how his company could help those new to the railway navigate the industry’s processes and, if necessary, challenge them.

Peter Hicks then described how his company had produced the Open Train Times website and could provide railway operational support for those new to the industry.

One such company is OneBigCircle, which specialises in intelligent video. Emily Kent described how her firm had developed Automated Intelligent Video Review (AIVR), which uses an in-cab Android device to capture video and machine learning to detect abnormalities. Following tests at the Quinton Rail Technology Centre test track, at Long Marston near Stratford-uponAvon, and on Network Rail’s new measurement train, the company was awarded a vegetationmanagement contract by Transport for Wales.

Emily felt that Network Rail was looking for SMEs that have products with potential to meet its challenges and that Network Rail’s appointment of an SME champion had been extremely helpful.

Tuesday - passenger improvements Understanding customers, so as to give them information they need, was the keynote address by Claire Cardosi, LNER’s head of digital decisioning. For her, providing personalised information is a priority. To achieve this, LNER Assistant was launched last year, which keeps passengers informed through either SMS texts, Facebook Messenger or the LNER Travel Buddy app.

However, as Claire explained, this is only available to the 23 per cent of LNER passengers who book tickets on the company’s website. She invited anyone with ideas of how to increase this engagement to contact her.

The Rail Research Data Platform (RRDP) was the subject of the presentation by Dr John Easton of the University of Birmingham. John is data lead for UKRRIN’s digital systems.

Ten years ago, the McNulty rail value for money study had concluded that poor data systems inhibited rail’s ability to do business. Although much had been done since then, John felt that the vast amount of data generated by the industry could still be better exploited.

Network Rail’s R&D portfolio.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

43

44

FEATURE

Apple watch for platform staff.

RRDP has been developed

by UKRRIN as a cross industry platform for data-led research such as the prediction and mitigation of disruption. It contains data from UKRRIN partner organisations, such as train movements over five years, in a cloud-based platform. This can be used to trial machine learning and undertake whole-system analysis of large streaming datasets. As it is subject to governance requirements, to ensure that datasets are used as specified by providers, it can currently only be used by UKRRIN approved projects.

The day’s elevator pitches concerned practical applications of industry data. The first was from Liam Henderson of RailTimesApp, who had developed the WatchMyTrain app for Apple watches. Although this app is now available to the public free of charge, versions are being developed for front-line staff for whom handheld devices may not be suitable. The intention is to provide wearable technology that can provide information such as trains on which passengers require assistance.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

Xingie Shen explained how his company, Transreport, was developing an app to assist rail passengers. Since 2018, it has been working with the Rail Delivery Group to develop an app supported by a new industry system to book passenger assistance, which is to be rolled out this year.

Replacing handwritten posters with lightweight, easily deployable technology displaying accurate consistent information was the subject of the pitch by Mark Bird of Blackboxco. To do this, the Blackbox company had considered how E-ink lowpower displays had been used at London bus stops and developed a cloud-connected 32-inch E-Ink Totem for London Overground trains.

Wednesday decomplexifying freight So far, the webinars had been about digital innovation.

However, Wednesday’s opening keynote showed how both hardware and digital innovation were needed to transform the freight business.

The presentation by Gregory March, head of planning and resource for the Rail Operations Group, was a vision of future rail freight and described the highspeed logistics concept being developed by its sister company, Orion.

Although there is a clear need to shift freight from road to rail, this is not easy, as rail freight requires high volumes. It also

works to tight financial margins and cannot justify capital investment without a guaranteed market. Nevertheless, Orion considers high-speed logistics to be a worthy investment.

The 20 per cent increase in road van use over the past ten years is an indication of the internet-driven increase in e-commerce. This could be a significant volume of rail traffic, even if rail captured only a small percentage. This is the rationale for the high-speed freight service that Orion is developing. To do so, it has ordered five Class 769 bi-mode trains from Porterbrook.

These are redundant four-car class 319 units that have been fitted with diesel engines to augment their existing 25kV AC/750V DC electric capabilities.

Orion will also establish a network of passenger stations, terminals and ports for this high-speed service. This will be supported with digital logistics technologies that will provide state-of-the-art customer service, such as real-time tracking.

Autonomous vehicles for first and last-mile services are also being considered.

Gregory also mentioned that the Rail Operations Group wishes to provide intermodal services at speeds comparable with passenger trains. So that they can be better accommodated on the network, a high-speed freight bogie is being developed. This is also one of the reasons for the procurement of Class 93 trimode locomotives.

FEATURE

He also stressed the need for rail freight to be flexible to meet customer demands. Yet, in contrast to road operators who can instantly respond, it has to deal with time-consuming archaic paperwork-based systems for scheduling freight trains.

The answer to this problem was given by Professor Amar Ramudhin of the University of Hull’s Logistics Institute, which is part of UKRRIN. NR+ is the first digital platform which combines all the relevant information needed for freight train planning. The system was developed by the institute and was partly funded by the DfT and Innovate UK. NR+ eliminates the need to find maximum tonnage and length for each segment by consulting load books, obtains route capability information from the sectional appendix, studies engineering access statements and completes forms to obtain dispensation for services exceeding published capability. Instead, interactive geospatial maps show possible freight train paths at a glance.

This significantly shortens the time required for freight train planning, reduces the training needed by new planners and minimises the likelihood of error. Professor Ramudhin acknowledged Network Rail’s excellent support

in obtaining the required data and defining arrangements for updating NR+ as legacy systems are updated.

Yves Sterbak-Dicke of Protostellar, part of the Thales group, then described his company’s SmartRailPort system which offers a secure digital platform to manage the transfer and storage of containers at small rail terminals.

This system provides terminal staff with a digital action list, enabling operators to provide a digital signature to record activities without leaving their cabs. It also calculates best loading and provides an estimated time of arrival.

Lucy Prior’s company 3Squared provides software solutions across the rail sector, such as RailSmart software tools that provide information to frontline staff and includes support for operational activities, training and competence management, operations and performance management. She considered that such tools were essential as they help reduce the weight of procedures and felt that developing such software was a massive opportunity for collaboration with industry partners.

The question and answer session noted the difficulties freight operators face, including exploiting actual capacity for freight operations.

Yves Sterbak noted that freight forwarders see

Ten Stadler-built Class 93 electric/diesel/battery locomotive are expected to be delivered in 2022.

NR+ includes interactive geospatial map.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

45

46

FEATURE rail as a complex beast that they don’t want to touch as it is easier to use lorries, so he felt that the challenge is to “decomplexify rail freight”.

Thursday - Mobility as a Service The subject of Thursday’s presentations was the use of cloud computing and mobile devices to facilitate seamless travel across differing public transport modes to provide Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The first was by Felicity Osborn, Network Rail’s programme manager for the €920 million European Shift2Rail initiative, which includes an innovation programme (IP4) for IT solutions for such multimodal travel.

The various IP4 projects are intended to improve customer experience and support Network Rail’s requirement to put passengers first by including mobility packages offering passengers smarter information and bestprice travel. These projects require companies with expertise that includes demonstration planning, business analytics and systems integration.

Alex Weedon of Connected Places Catapult (CPC) explained how the Catapults accelerate the UK’s capability for innovation by helping companies commercialise innovation and stimulating engagement between businesses and research centres. CPC, formerly the Transport Systems Catapult, is keen to support SMEs. It does so by helping identify the need for innovation, assessing the best route for it and forming partnerships within its network of over 350 academics and 1,500 SMEs. The Intelligent Mobility Accelerator is a partnership between CPC and Wayra (Telefonica’s open innovation hub) that, to date, has created 24 commercial pilots for participating start-ups, which have raised over £200 million in investment. He announced that CPC was about to launch a programme that will be focused on rail and advised delegates to look out for this announcement.

In his pitch, Sam Bussey of Instrumentel, part of Unipart group, advised that his company specialised in precision measurements in extreme environments and the analysis of data from such sensors, providing a condition-based maintenance regime. When integrated with the Unipart supply chain, this ensures parts are supplied when required without excessive inventory costs.

Rene Perkins of City MaaS described the mobility app that her company is creating for passengers with disabilities. This matches specific disability requirements to appropriate transportation, using artificial intelligence to evaluate the best options.

Alex Shapland Howes was concerned with the needs of those outside big cities where bus services can be poor and there are no Uber

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

taxis. He felt that most MaaS initiatives were concerned with big cities and that there was a requirement for digital transport technologies in areas with poor public transport.

His company, Tandem, has a ridesharing app that turns local taxis into micro buses by finding people travelling in roughly the same direction at about the same time. Such individuals often require a guaranteed arrival time, for example to get a train. Hence the service is booked by specifying the required drop off time, whereas city models book by pick up time.

Tandem is currently operating in Wellingborough, where it has formed partnerships with recruitment agencies that struggled to place people in out of town industrial estates.

Friday - mass transit for Leeds The last day’s webinar considered a future transport system for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises Bradford, Calderdale Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield local authorities and is part of the wider Leeds city region. Tom Gifford, head of West Yorkshire Mass Transit, noted that, although the region has the largest regional economy in the UK outside Greater London, it has no mass transit system. Hence, an efficient transport infrastructure is a key priority for the region. He felt this will require vehicles that carried between 200 and 300 passengers.

The lack of an urban transit system does, however, give the region the opportunity to learn from others. To do this, in August, the Authority issued a call for market testing to understand how the industry sees mass transit developing so that it can use the best available technologies. About 120 organisations responded to this call.

FEATURE

Tom advised that broad conclusions from this exercise were: » Autonomous operation Feasible in a fully segregated environment and for depot operation but unlikely to be possible in a mixed traffic environment in the next decade. Segregation gives reliable journeys, unaffected by traffic congestion. » Propulsion - Strong differences of opinion on whether hydrogen was appropriate. Feasible to plan end-to-end system battery operation with rapid charging points instead of overhead wires. » Connectivity - Single digital platform with standardised interface required to share data with all transport modes and technologies. 5G provides an opportunity for the control centre to control all vehicles remotely. » Climate emergency and air quality - Many cities are investing in light rail to meet climate change commitments which may also require car traffic demand management. » Future-proofing - Build in data-driven asset maintenance, giving flexibility for future passenger demands. Design-in redundancy for changing

operating conditions.

Tom advised that the next step was to develop a strategic outline business case for the development and delivery of a mass transit system for which there is government commitment through the West Yorkshire devolution deal.

A low-cost mass transit option was presented by Dr Nick Mallinson, programme manager of the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG). He pointed out that medium-sized cities cannot justify the capital costs of conventional tram systems, which are typically £40 million per kilometre.

For some time, WMG has been developing Very Light Rail (VLR) technologies, which provide lighter vehicles designed for low-cost manufacturing, do not require overhead electrification, have autonomous control and a novel factory-manufactured track.

In 2016, Coventry City Council asked WMG if a VLR system could be provided at a cost of around £10 million per kilometre. To meet this requirement, WMG designed an 11-metre-long vehicle, capable of carrying around 50 passengers, powered by batteries with a range of around 20 kilometres using

rapid charging at the end of each route. These will be ‘autonomous ready’, so will eventually not require drivers.

Working with Ingerop Rendell, WMG is also developing a novel track form of modular construction that will be no more than 300mm deep to provide faster installation by minimising excavations and utility diversions. This track will be tested at the VLR national innovation centre in Dudley, which is currently under construction.

The plan is to component test the prototype vehicle by the end of 2020, install the track form at the Dudley test centre at the end of 2021 and then trial vehicle running. Over the next three years, Coventry City Council will prepare the Transport and Works Order with the intention of construction starting in 2024 and the first phase opening in 2025.

The need for autonomous trains was highlighted in the pitch by Adam Stead of Apollo, who advised that drivers cost £450,000 per train per year. Such systems would enable autonomous on-street operation of vehicles such as those being developed

by WMG. Apollo is also developing an autonomous moving block signalling system

Proposed VLR vehicle for Coventry.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

47

48

FEATURE

Novel track form under development. which Swiss Federal Railways is considering for degraded operations.

The final pitch of the day was from Mike Lloyd of Jnction, which uses digital technology to improve the experience of rail passengers. Clients include Northern Rail, Crossrail and London Overground.

Jnction’s products include an app that provides front-line Crossrail station staff with the train-running information they require as well as a hidden disability journey planner for autistic people that minimises their stress minutes for easier end-to-end journeys on public transport.

Virtual food for thought RIA’s unlocking innovation events always do exactly what they say. This virtual event was no exception. However, with no networking opportunities, such events are unlikely to be the norm in a post-COVID world.

Although these webinars lacked the atmosphere of a physical event, they are a good way of learning about developments.

The host, Richard Jones, did a good job of engaging with his unseen audience.

The webinars raised some interesting issues. Various presentations concerned smartphone apps and it was good to see some of these supporting passengers with disabilities. One speaker suggested that apps which scanned QR codes could

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

replace expensive signage with personalised information. Yet not everyone has a smartphone, and the railway must not exclude those who are not digitally connected.

The ever-smaller percentage of fares paid by cash raises a similar issue, as cash collection can cost more than the amount received. For this reason, TfL no longer accept cash on buses.

However, West Yorkshire’s Tom Gifford felt that inclusivity is important, so public transport should not discriminate against those without smartphones or who pay only in cash.

It will be interesting to see which technologies will be chosen for the proposed West Yorkshire mass transit system, which will no doubt bring great benefits to the region.

Yet, as conventional trams are too expensive for smaller cities, WMG’s development of a lower-cost VLR system is a worthwhile initiative. However, it remains to be seen how VLR’s capacity will compare with the 10,000 people per hour that conventional trams can carry.

In big cities, the real purpose of Mobility as a Service is to encourage drivers out of their cars and onto good public transport systems. In contrast, there is a real need for smart digital transport technologies outside cities, to make the best use of available transport. Alex Shapland-Howes is right to suggest that more needs to be done in this respect.

The Rail Operations Group is investing in innovative rolling stock and digital technologies to drive the growth of its business. Yet it was clear that rail freight is inhibited by processes that restrict its agility.

As Yves Sterbak noted, the challenge is to “decomplexify rail freight”. Perhaps Network Rail could usefully produce a challenge statement to define what needs to be done in this respect. The NR+ system, as described by Professor Ramudhin, is certainly one answer, as it removes the planning constraints of historic British Rail systems that have been used for so long.

As described above, the webinars provided much food for thought with some inspiring presentations. One key message was that there is no shortage of funds to assist companies to develop worthwhile ideas, especially if they already have a working product.

Rail Engineer looks forward to seeing how the ideas presented at these unlocking innovation webinars will be developed.

RIA’s next set of unlocking innovation webinars will take place during the week commencing 29 June. Open to all, they can be booked on the RIA website and will explore how the Digital Railway programme is evolving into ‘business as usual’ as the first rollout projects commence.

FEATURE

Face coverings WHY CAN'T SCIENTISTS AGREE?

W

hen Grant Shapps advised that face coverings would be compulsory for those using public transport, he noted that scientists aren’t in full agreement about face coverings. Yet it is difficult

to understand why the transmission of the Covid-19 virus should be a matter of scientific debate. Furthermore, such disagreements weaken the essential requirement for a clear message.

Keeping two-metre social distancing as trains get busier will, to quote Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines, “result in a very chaotic situation”, which has its own risks. If effective, face coverings offer a way to reduce this distance safely. This issue is therefore of crucial importance to the rail industry and the safety of its passengers and staff.

Follow the science Asking the right question Fundamental to this disagreement is what question is being asked.

If it is “how can members of the public be protected?”, then homemade face coverings are not the answer. The fine aerosol carrying the virus can only be stopped by a high-filtration surgical grade mask.

A more meaningful question is “how to control the virus at source”, which requires constraining the virus-laden fluid particles from the mouth. A paper produced by the University of Edinburgh entitled “Face Coverings, Aerosol Dispersion and Mitigation of Virus Transmission Risk” explains that the optical technique of schlieren imaging was used to visualise airflows from the mouth. This showed that coughing ejects droplets at around 10 metres per second and concluded that all masks enable a reduction of at least 90 per cent of the distance of the front throughflow.

The paper by Trisha Greenhalgh, Professor of Primary Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, entitled “Face coverings for the public: Laying straw men to rest”, provides detailed evidence to show that face coverings constrain the virus and rebuts criticism of one of her earlier papers.

If most people wore face-coverings in public, it would reduce the R number to entirely stop the spread of COVID-19

Professor Greenhalgh considers the basic science of Covid-19, which replicates in the upper respiratory tract and so is likely to be transmitted mainly by relatively large droplets emitted by coughing, sneezing, and speaking. They then quickly turn into aerosols which are much harder to block.

Although individuals suffering from the virus should not be on public transport, Greenhalgh demonstrates that there is significant virus transmission by those without symptoms. She also shows that face covering need not be 100 per cent effective, as mathematical modelling suggests face coverings that are only 60 per cent effective and only worn by 60 per cent of the population would reduce the R number to below 1.0.

She provides examples of the effectiveness of face coverings. In one, a mask-wearing virus carrier who flew from China to Toronto and did not infect anyone else on the plane. Another example is the Czech Republic and Austria, which both introduced social distancing on the same day, with the former mandating compulsory face coverings. New infections fell more quickly in the Czech Republic, and only began to fall in Austria after masks were made mandatory two weeks later.

In her rebuttal of the criticisms of her earlier paper, Greenhalgh considers the respective merits of “systematic” and “narrative” reviews. She considers that, whilst systematic reviews, with their controlled experiments, are suitable for narrowly defined biomedical questions, more complex problems require the insight of a narrative review. She notes that, in the face of a pandemic, the search for perfect evidence may be the enemy of good policy.

Thus, it seems that the scientific disagreement about face coverings is about answering the right question and academic differences over scientific method. Reaching the correct conclusion requires consideration of all relevant factors, including the risks associated with a large increase in road traffic if rail commuter services can only operate at 15 per cent of their capacity.

If all such factors are considered, the rationale for face coverings is irrefutable. Yet this needs to be clearly explained to the public if their use, and any associated reduction in social distancing on trains, is to be accepted.

All safety practitioners know that, in the hierarchy of risk controls, the priority should be to remove the hazard at source and that PPE should be the last line of defence. Trisha Greenhalgh presents a convincing argument to demonstrate that face-coverings can largely eliminate the hazard of Covid-19 at source.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

49

50

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

Respond, Rebuild, Revive and Renew Andrew Haines considers a post-Covid railway

N

etwork Rail chief executive Andrew Haines holds round-table briefings with the editors of the rail industry’s press, including Rail Engineer and sister publication RailStaff, every six months or so.

On 8 June, thanks to the Covid-19 lockdown, no table was in evidence and instead everyone logged into Zoom. Andrew Haines spoke for about 15 minutes, then opened the sessions up to questions from those attending. It was a far-reaching session, and gave Andrew the chance to explain how he felt the four phases of Covid-19’s had affected and would still have an impact on the rail industry. In doing so, he used the four ‘R’ words.

Respond Andrew Haines considers that the railways have responded very well to the Covid-19 crisis and is immensely proud of what his colleagues have done.

The railway was given a “peculiar brief” - to run a sensible level of service for key workers, regardless of how many people were using them. He considered the reduction in train services was the industry’s biggest ever short-term train planning exercise, which went remarkably smoothly.

The industry has also done a good job of maintaining capital investment, as Network Rail and its supply chain have worked in an agile manner to respond to challenges of social distancing. As a result, in April and May, about £1 billion was spent on renewal and enhancements.

During this time, rapid payments were made to suppliers. Few, if any, other parts of the economy have managed to sustain that level of economic activity.

There have also been some fantastic examples of rail industry colleagues helping the broader community. Network Rail helped build the Manchester Nightingale hospital and was involved in the provision of PPE for the NHS, for example, having arranged for a lemonade bottle manufacturer near Stockport to manufacture temporary visors.

Rebuild What Andrew considered to be a “big ask” is the ramping up of services, to around 85 per cent of previous levels, on Monday 6 July. Whilst Network Rail was very pleased with the decision to mandate face coverings on public transport in England from 15 June, he was concerned that,

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE if the requirement is to maximise trains, passengers and social distancing, a “very chaotic situation” will be the result.

Although the industry explained the consequences of differing levels of social distancing, government has yet to decide whether to relax this. It considers that such a decision must be based on scientific evidence.

Yet the government is faced with conflicting scientific advice on the effectiveness of face coverings, despite strong evidence that their use could safely allow a reduced social distance, as explained in our feature about face coverings elsewhere in this issue.

Revive It clearly will be a long time before there is a return to the previous levels of travel.

Hence Andrew feels that the revival of rail travel is fundamental. This means that the industry shouldn’t take passengers and freight users for granted and that a reliable timetable with excellent train performance will be essential.

He also considers that more space will be needed for cyclists and that a sustained marketing campaign, not seen since the days of British Rail, will be required.

The Covid-19 crisis will almost certainly drive fare reform, as it has accelerated the trend of flexible and home working.

As revenue risk is no longer with the train operating companies, it seems likely that the Department for Transport will have to lead fare reform - and do so quickly.

The emergency measures arrangements that replaced franchising need to be replaced this September with something more sustainable. The challenge will be to devise contracts that provide an effective response to a variable situation at a time of reduced revenue.

Andrew also felt that there is still an appetite for rail reform, a topic in which Keith Williams is still actively involved.

The government is considering how to deal with his recommendations now that franchising has been largely parked. As it is unlikely that there will not be much time for parliamentary legislation to create a new body, the issue is how much can be done through a combination of direct DfT control, industry collaboration and collective leadership.

Renewal Despite the enormous financial pressures, Andrew advised that “we are hearing encouraging messages from government about the desire for further

infrastructure spend” and that “we are not yet seeing a threatened cull of capital or revenue expenditure.” Yet his message to the supply chain is that “you have got to work with us to drive efficiencies” as doing this is “going to make or break our ability to access additional government funding in the next few years”.

For its part, Network Rail must improve the way that GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) is applied. He advised that the company is looking very radically at this to reduce timescales and costs.

Yet, many consider there’s nothing wrong with GRIP and that the problem is it being applied in a cumbersome way with endless months spent on optioneering and spurious risk assessments.

The speed at which work was mobilised for the Kilsby tunnel blockade and derailment repairs on the Gospel Oak to Barking line gave Andrew hope that the GRIP process can be reformed. He thought that the key lessons from these examples is to reinstate the power of the professional engineer, railway operator and railway manager. Essentially, he felt that this was about “repositioning the position of the professionals in the industry to take those key decisions”.

Electrification Having tackled the four Rs, Andrew moved on to other topics, largely as a response to questions from the 'virtual floor'.

He confirmed that Network Rail will be presenting its Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy to the DfT in July in accordance with the original timescale. The hope is that this will result in an extensive electrification programme. The sense he is getting is that Ministers are taking it very seriously but are not yet quite ready to go public.

Network Rail has always advised that a continuous programme is required. If government require this, Network Rail could provide the supply chain with the continuity of demand that would facilitate investment in skills and technology to get a better price.

He was absolutely determined to demonstrate that Network Rail has ‘fit for purpose’ electrification standards.

He advised that “what we do know is that we can do more electrification on the Transpennine route upgrade more cheaply, because of the work that we have done to significantly reduce electrification clearances, which has driven a lot of costs out of structures”.

In the short-term, the Midland main line electrification could be extended.

However, there may be a short lead time before electrification can be restarted.

Network Rail recognised the importance of keeping experienced teams together and he thought that was why the government is looking to move quickly.

He hoped the supply chain recognised this and would not do anything rash in this respect.

Track worker safety The recent double tragedy of Margam in July, followed by another track fatality at Roade in April, sadly highlighted the importance of improved track safety arrangements.

Andrew advised that investment in a track worker safety task force had been approved two weeks before the Margam fatalities and that its programme had four elements: 1. Planning and undertaking maintenance, for which progress has been made with Covid driving riskbased maintenance; 2. Technology such as track warning systems, which are not consistently used across the network; 3. Signaller workload and the use of line blockages - one challenge is that Covid is limiting access to signalling centres for assessments; 4. Culture.

Of these, culture is the most difficult issue to address. Andrew felt that although, in many ways the industry had a positive culture, some behaviours needed to be improved. He also felt that informal relationships mitigated against safetycritical communications.

In this respect he had some challenging, honest and constructive discussions with Trade Union leaders and his own colleagues.

In the hour that he spent talking and answering questions, one thing that came across very strongly was Andrew’s belief that Network Rail is part of the railway as a whole. He is, no doubt, very close to the train operators, both individually and collectively through the Rail Delivery Group. He was quite prepared to answer questions on train operations, whether passengers should wear face masks and how they keep their distance - for example commenting that keeping two metres apart while boarding a busy train would adversely affect both dwell times and adherence to the timetable.

It was a very revealing session.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

51

52

FEATURE

Rail decarbonisation update

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE

DAVID SHIRRES

T

he feature in our March issue that considered the electrification required for a zero-carbon railway attracted a great deal of interest. This included a map showing that between 4,300 and 6,300 route kilometres of electrification was likely to be required from an analysis of the amount and type of traffic on currently unelectrified lines.

Some responded stating that particular lines on the map should be shown as definite, rather than possible, electrification. Whilst this could well be the case, this study was not intended to be a definitive, line-by-line statement of electrification requirements.

Instead, it set out to show the scale of electrification required, with immediate priorities.

This had to take account of the amount of electrification that a cost-effective rolling programme could deliver by the 2050 net-zero target date.

Requests for the spreadsheet used in this analysis were received from various train manufacturers and industry bodies. One of these was considering how gauging strategy could take cognisance of future electrification

plans, in respect of passive provision where there will be no electrification. This is an example of the need for a strategic overview.

TDNS study The spreadsheet was also shared with Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) team. This strategy was a recommendation of the report by the rail industry’s decarbonisation taskforce, which was set up to respond to the then Transport Minister Jo Johnson’s call in February 2018 to eliminate diesel-only trains.

Diesel freight under the wires, only 6% of UK rail freight is diesel hauled, much of this for long distances on the electrified network.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

53

54

FEATURE Decarbonising transport

With the subsequent UK adoption of a net-zero carbon target, this requirement became the elimination of all diesel trains.

The TDNS is analysing all unelectrified rail corridors to determine whether they should use electric, hydrogen or battery traction by considering the limitations of battery and hydrogen traction and the cost of electrification.

A programme business case will then be produced, using a whole lifecycle cost and benefit model that quantifies carbon savings to provide the basis for each element of a rolling decarbonisation programme, together with a map showing which traction technologies should be deployed.

This work will provide Network Rail’s regions with an overarching strategic document to prioritise infrastructure work and develop their infrastructure decarbonisation projects. It will also inform future rolling stock requirements for those who buy and manufacture trains. In this respect, the TDNS will consider rolling stock that needs to be renewed before the 2050 deadline and opportunities to retrofit existing diesel bimodes with zero-carbon traction.

From a discussion with Michele Piu, a strategic planner in the TDNS team, it was clear that Rail Engineer’s electrification map was broadly in line with the TDNS’s emerging conclusions.

These are that rail decarbonisation requires a major electrification programme, although electrification cannot be justified on lines with limited use. On some lines it is not yet possible to specify a definitive solution, given future unknowns such as the emerging cost of electrification, government valuation of carbon savings and emerging capabilities hydrogen and battery traction.

The TDNS report will provide an indicative decarbonisation programme and will be sent to decision makers for endorsement later this year.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

The DfT published its “Decarbonising Transport” report in March. This rightly emphasised the need for a shift from cars to public transport and for zero-emission road vehicles. However, it did not fully address the net-zero report produced by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). For example, the DfT report did not mention the need to double electricity generating capacity for large scale use of electric road vehicles.

The CCC report considers that, by 2050, HGVs would be hydrogen powered, as batteries are unlikely to be suitable for heavy road vehicles. To achieve net zero, the CCC report considers that the annual demand for hydrogen for transport requires investment in hydrogen infrastructure to service an annual demand of about 25 TWh (HGVs - 22 TWh, Buses - 3 TWh, Trains - 0.3 TWh).

However, the DfT report also does not mention hydrogen powered HGVs or buses.

This omission was underscored by a recent letter to Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hydrogen, which complained that, whilst his department is funding a £50 million trial of electric buses, there is no equivalent funding for hydrogen bus trials.

In respect of aviation, the DfT’s report considers efficiency improvements, sustainable fuels and market-based measures. It does not mention the CCC report’s conclusion that there are unlikely to be zero-carbon planes by 2050 (Airbus and Rolls-Royce have recently cancelled their E-Fan X demonstrator programme, just a year before the experimental hybrid-electric engine airliner was supposed to fly) or its recommendation of a 30 per cent reduction in plane travel. Instead, DfT notes that airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity.

The section on passenger rail notes that the railway is becoming less carbon-intensive as new trains come into service and the railway uses greener electricity. It concludes that “we recognise that electrifying more of the railway is likely to be necessary to deliver decarbonisation”.

The use of the term “likely” is curious, as statistics demonstrate how existing electrification is progressively reducing carbon emissions, as with the greening of the grid. As shown in the table, over the past five years, the average electric rail passenger vehicle has reduced its emissions by 41 per cent and, per vehicle, diesel passenger trains now produce almost four times more CO2 emissions than electric trains.

The DfT report does, however, recognise that “the main way to achieve rail freight decarbonisation is to stop using diesel traction through direct government intervention to roll

FEATURE

out further electrification”. It further states that the TDNS will inform the deployment of electrification and use of battery and hydrogen technologies over the next 30 years, and also notes the requirement “to make rail an even more attractive option so that more people choose this greener mode of travel”.

Clean air Poor air quality, like CO2 emissions, is a subject of increasing public concern.

Public Health England considers it to be the “biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure”.

Five per cent of the population are estimated to have respiratory problems.

Those recovering from Coronavirus will also suffer lung damage.

While air quality and greenhouse gases are two different problems, they have the same solution - the replacement of diesel engines

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

55

56

FEATURE

Hydroflex, a joint development by Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham.

by zero-carbon traction.

However, unlike greenhouse gases, the risk from air pollution is at specific locations. For this reason, improving air quality at problematic stations is a factor that the TDNS will consider when prioritising electrification schemes.

Various UK cities are establishing clean air zones (CAZ), where road vehicles not meeting the required emission standards are banned or pay a fine. Birmingham’s CAZ, the area within the inner ring road, came into force in January and imposes an £8 per day charge for diesel cars that fail to meet Euro 6 emission standards.

Birmingham New Street station, where air quality is a particular problem, lies within this zone.

In 2018, a University of Birmingham study found, at platform level below the concourse, a consistent exceedance of the DEFRA one-hour nitrogen dioxide limit, with, typically, one hundred trains a day idling for more than 15 minutes.

Since then, £1 million has been spent to upgrade the station’s 98 extractor fans and install 97 new sensors to monitor exhaust fumes. In addition, the action plan to reduce train idling includes installing auto-shutdown software on class 220/221

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

units and health screening all platform despatch staff. This plan is supported by analysis of the large amount of real-time data from these sensors to identify hot spots and monitor the emissions of each train.

Whilst this will, no doubt, improve the situation, the real solution is the decarbonisation of trains using the station.

Hydrogen There are no harmful emissions from hydrogen trains as fuel cells mix hydrogen fuel with oxygen in the air to produce electricity and water vapour, the train’s only emission.

Except for short-distance services, hydrogen trains are the only non-zero carbon option for non-electrified lines. Yet, for the same energy storage, hydrogen at 350bar requires fuel tanks eight times the size of a diesel tank. Hydrogen trains are also inefficient, due both to the losses from converting electricity to hydrogen and back again and to the energy needed to compress hydrogen for storage. With a hydrogen train, one kilowatt of power at the wheel requires, typically, 3.4 kilowatts of grid electricity.

By comparison, an electric train requires about 1.2 kilowatts. Whilst hydrogen can be produced using surplus

overnight wind power, this inefficiency is a significant issue if hydrogen were to be used on a large scale.

Our feature in the March issue concluded that, for a net-zero railway, hydrogen trains will carry between five and 18 per cent of the traffic. Thus, assuming that in 2050 there will be 22,000 passenger vehicles in service, between 1,000 and 4,000 hydrogen vehicles would be required by then.

Despite the lack of UK hydrogen passenger trains, hydrogen traction can be regarded as a mature traction technology. Alstom’s hydrogenpowered two-car Coradia iLint entered service in northern Germany in September 2018.

In addition to these two preseries trains, a further 39 units have been ordered for use in Germany.

In March 2020, a hydrogenfuelled iLint successfully completed ten days of testing in the Netherlands.

Siemens is also developing a hydrogen train based on its Mireo platform, which is expected to be ready next year.

Britain’s first mainline hydrogen train is Hydroflex, a joint development by Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham. This was produced in just nine months by housing the fuel cell, battery, hydrogen storage tanks and other equipment inside the motor vehicle of a converted Class 319 EMU. Hydroflex is purely a demonstrator vehicle, from which many useful lessons will be learnt.

Alstom unveiled its design for a UK hydrogen train in January last year. This ‘Breeze’ concept is a Class 321 conversion that packs Alstom’s hydrogen technology within the UK loading gauge.

Unlike the iLint, which has roofmounted hydrogen tanks, the Breeze stores hydrogen inside the train with a consequent reduction in passenger space.

With a new train, rather than a conversion, it may be possible to design hydrogen storage that

FEATURE does not encroach the passenger area. However, a bespoke UK hydrogen train would require a significant production run.

Whilst hydrogen traction is being actively pursued in the UK, it may be some years before passengers travel on hydrogen trains. Obtaining approval to operate a train with systems for which there are no standards will be challenging.

Another issue is a reliable supply of hydrogen.

The Tees Valley Combined Authority is developing plans for hydrogen trains, as the area produces a large amount of the UK’s hydrogen.

Other reports indicate that the deployment of hydrogen trains require the development of hydrogen infrastructure, yet there is no requirement for hydrogen trains to operate close to a hydrogen plant or be supplied from hydrogen pipelines.

Currently, almost all hydrogen is produced in large chemical plants by reforming methane gas. This produces greenhouse gas emissions and is insufficiently pure for use in fuel cells. Alternatively, it can be produced by electrolysis, which produces a purer hydrogen and is zero-carbon if powered by renewable energy.

In Aberdeen, the electrolysis plant that fuelled the city’s fleet of ten hydrogen buses had to produce around 150kg of hydrogen per day. It consisted of three electrolysers (each the size of a 40ft container), two compressors,

two dispensers, storage tanks, associated control systems and cooling plant. It required a 1MW electricity supply.

With the iLint’s hydrogen tanks holding 190kg of hydrogen, a train depot servicing, say, a fleet of ten trains would need an electrolyser plant around fifteen times of that in Aberdeen bus plant. Such a facility could cost around £20 million.

It is likely that, as in Germany, the train manufacturer would provide this plant to give train operators a serviced and fuelled train. Hence, the cost of the electrolyser plant increases the up-front cost of the trains and requires an order for a small fleet to justify this investment. Thus, like electrification, hydrogen trains require capital investment before fleet operation is possible.

The iLint’s roof mounted hydrogen fuel cells and tanks.

EXPERIENCED PROVIDER FOR GE

T YO UR EZI Q

UOT WITH E IN 1 HOU R KEY CLAMP

GRP HANDRAIL

GRP STEPS & WALKWAYS

Call or email today for a quote from your drawings or product requirements.

T 0117 970 2420 E sales@eziklampsystems.com

GRP FENCING

ARMCO CRASH BARRIER

Visit our website eziklampsystems.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

57

58

FEATURE

Nine-car bi-mode Azuma train with five 560kW diesel power packs.

The transition Much has been written on how net-zero rail traction can be achieved by 2050. However, for most of the network, this is a relatively straightforward problem, as the underlying science defines where it is appropriate to have electrification, hydrogen or battery traction.

However, transitional arrangements are a more complex issue. The big lesson from recent electrification schemes is the need for a costeffective rolling programme. Hence it will be many years before some lines requiring electrification get their wires. TDNS must therefore prioritise electrification and determine the best use of transitional low-carbon technologies. This is a complex task given the size of the unelectrified network and number of options.

The good news is that modern traction technology facilitates a rolling programme of electrification. Battery traction can provide zero-carbon running over short distances in advance of electrification. For example, LNER is considering replacing diesel power packs with batteries on Azuma trains for short distances off the wire, such as to Lincoln and Harrogate.

An option being considered in Scotland is electrifying the six-mile Levenmouth branch as it is reopened. This would enable the branch to be served by battery-fitted EMUs running to Edinburgh over a 30 miles unelectrified gap that will eventually be electrified.

Bi-mode trains support a rolling programme as the amount of diesel running can be progressively reduced as a route is electrified.

Replacing the diesel-powered HST fleet with bi-modes resulted in significant carbon savings as it eliminated diesel running under the wires.

For example, a Class 800/1 between London and Inverness has about a third of the CO2 emissions of the HSTs they replaced. Yet their

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

diesel power packs, which are generally unused for most of the journey, account for eight per cent of the weight of the train and thus result in additional energy consumption when running on fully electrified routes. Moreover, as the diesel performance of bi-mode trains does not come close to their electric power, it was wrong for Chris Grayling to claim that these trains make electrification unnecessary.

Another useful transitional-only technology is dual-fuelled trains, a concept that Grand Central was about to trial before the COVID 19 emergency. The company has a fleet of ten fivecar Class 180 ‘Adelante’ DMUs, which are now the only diesel trains that operate into King’s Cross.

This trial is on a vehicle on one of the Class 180 units. This has been fitted with dual-fuel technology which optimises combustion when liquified natural gas (LNG) is mixed with diesel.

The LNG is stored at minus 190°C in a cryogenic tank. The dual-fuel engine performs exactly as if it were running as a diesel-only engine and has a reduced diesel consumption and engine noise.

This is a proven technology used on over 300 lorries in the UK that have run over 50 million kilometres.

This system reduces particulate emissions by over 50 per cent and CO2 by between 25 and 40 per cent. The pay-back period from the reduced fuel costs is less than five years. This trial, which was part-funded by RSSB, will resume when COVID 19 restrictions permit.

Dual-fuel technology thus solves half the emissions problem. It is also relatively straightforward to refit. Given the time needed to electrify the network and introduce hydrogen trains, it might be expected that other diesel train fleets, with many years life remaining, will be retrofitted with this technology.

FEATURE The first law The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created but can only be converted from one form to another. Hence most forms of transport must store chemical or electrical energy and carry a power unit to convert this to kinetic energy. A vehicle’s power and range is limited by the energy it can store.

The challenge for decarbonised transport is that nothing comes close to the amount of energy stored in liquid fossil fuels. For planes, it is difficult to imagine any alternative. For trains and road vehicles, the only practical zero-carbon energy storage is batteries and hydrogen (at 350bar) with energy densities of typically seven and 14 percent that of diesel fuel. Thus, they can only be used for relatively low powered applications and, in the case of batteries, for short distances.

Electric trains, however, can get around the limitations of the first law of thermodynamics as they can receive a large amount

of energy whilst in motion. Thus, their power is not limited by the need to store energy on-board or the maximum power of an on-board power plant.

In February 2018, when the then Transport Minister Jo Johnson challenged the industry to report back by the autumn how it could eliminate dieselonly trains to decarbonise the railway, he suggested that battery and hydrogen trains were a “prize on the horizon”.

It then took 18 months to produce the final 66-page rail industry decarbonisation report.

Its foreward called for a judicious mix of electric, hydrogen and battery traction but did not refer to the large-scale electrification programme of 4,250 route kilometres mentioned on page 34. The report recommended that the TDNS should specify what this judicious mix should be.

It seems that the TDNS will show the need for a large-scale electrification programme once it is finalised. Thus, it will have taken around 30 months for the

industry to submit a report to government that demonstrates the need for a large-scale electrification programme.

There is certainly a need for the TDNS’s detailed analysis, showing how the transition to a zero-carbon railway is best achieved. Yet it should only have required a few weeks to produce a report to show that net-zero rail traction is only possible with a large-scale electrification programme, as this is the only possible conclusion if the science is followed.

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

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

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

Road Crossings

//

Road Rail Access

//

Pedestrian Crossings

Rosehill Rail_Rail Engineer Half Page Advert MAY2020_Technical Excellence.indd 1

//

Anti-Trespass

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020 14/04/2020 15:10

59

60

FEATURE

JUSTIN MOSS

Reducing the costs of ELECTRIFICATION

I

n March 2020, the Department for Transport (DfT) published its ‘Decarbonising Transport’ paper, outlining the role the transport sector has to play in achieving the government’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The paper marks the start of a process which will see the government set out the policies and plans needed to address transport emissions and to realise the broad range of benefits that decarbonisation will deliver, improving people’s health, creating better places to live and travel in, and driving clean economic growth.

It also recognises that electrifying more of the railway will be necessary to achieve this, with major projects including the Great Western main line and Midland main line upgrade programmes already set to greatly expand the electrified railway network.

However, whilst electrification is set to have a major impact on the decarbonisation of the railway, the predominance of Victorian infrastructure across the network has historically presented projects with major engineering and cost challenges.

This is especially the case when 25kV catenary equipment has had to be installed underneath existing infrastructure, such as bridges or tunnels.

Until now, this has only been possible by removing and replacing the existing structure, or lowering the track, which is not only costly and time consuming for the project but can also be problematic if the structure is listed or requires utility diversions.

The problem - electrical clearance The issue that has arisen when negotiating these structures has been the need to provide sufficient electrical clearance. Clearances are defined by standards and legislation and are an essential factor when designing and developing overhead line systems. If adequate electrical clearance cannot be provided, then scheme designers have had to consider whether to modify or renew the bridge or tunnel, or alternatively to lower the trackwork running through it.

Clearly, expert knowledge of electrical clearances throughout the overhead line design process has been critical, enabling different scenarios to be modelled and assessed. To ensure the

Surge arresters come in all shapes and sizes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

electrified infrastructure doesn’t suffer electrical flashovers, which could result in catastrophic failure of equipment and significant operational disruption to the railway, the designers will have taken into account a range of factors, including normal and extreme environmental conditions, pantograph uplift and maintenance tolerances.

These have been difficult decisions, not only because of the impact they would have on a programme’s costs and timescales, but also in their contribution to the overall embedded carbon for the delivery of the scheme. Addressing these issues has been a key deciding factor as to whether some electrification projects have been viable.

The challenge then has been to reduce electrification costs and shorten programme timescales by eliminating the need to undertake these disruptive, timeconsuming and costly infrastructure works.

FEATURE The solution - Surge Arresters In response to this issue, Siemens Mobility’s electrification team has developed an engineered solution which uses a 25kV surge arrester in circuit with the overhead line system.

This enables reduced electrical clearances to be applied and delivers significant cost and delivery benefits.

By introducing surge arresters into the electrification system at bridges and tunnels, if over-voltages do occur, for example through a lightning strike, the surge arrester reduces the impact by a magnitude of voltage which complies with the required electrical clearance values between an overhead line and structure.

Depending on the required protection level, surge arresters can be applied to the overhead line equipment at both sides of the structure and for each contact system running through it that requires a reduced electrical clearance.

As described in issue 158 (December 2017), on completion of extensive test trials in 2017, Siemens Mobility’s surge arrester has been approved for use by Network Rail and has now been designed and installed on the UK network since December 2019, with the first installation being in Cardiff, where restrictions caused by the proximity of a canal, combined with a rail intersection bridge, meant that the track could not be raised or lowered to accommodate compliant electrification equipment.

The system is also being considered at other locations in the UK, such as Wales and Borders and the Transpennine Route Upgrade.

To monitor the frequency and cause of overvoltage incidents, a counter module can be installed with the surge arrester that can be read remotely from a track side position using Bluetooth technology. In contrast to simple

spot checks, these long-term measurements automatically provide optimum information for trend analysis and make a valuable contribution to asset management.

Already proven in projects, surge arresters are removing one of the major obstacles that has held back many electrification projects in the past. By reducing the overall cost of programmes and shortening delivery programmes, the application of this technology will reduce disruption for passengers, improve performance and deliver cleaner and quieter journeys, making a significant contribution to the industry’s decarbonisation targets.

Justin Moss is strategic development manager rail electrification at Siemens Mobility.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

61

62

FEATURE

The Grand Paris Express A CATALYST FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT

T

he Greater Paris project seeks to transform the French capital from a monocentric city to a multipolar metropolis. At the heart of this ambitious plan, combining urban and economic development, is the Grand Paris Express, a new-build automatic metro designed to link up and breathe new life into the Paris suburbs and beyond.

To dig deeper, Rail Engineer met with Alexandre Missoffe, managing director of Greater Paris Investment Agency, which has several tasks on its hands. In addition to tracking and encouraging investment, both within the Paris region (Ile-de-France) and in the construction project itself, it also liaises with other cities worldwide.

“From London to Singapore, Toronto, Hong Kong and Moscow, we are all exploring ways to make our cities sustainable with affordable housing, an efficient economic situation, clustering activities,” explained Alexandre Missoffe.

“The fundamental nature of the issues we are facing is the same: how to expand our cities without pushing people too far outside the centre? How to resist urban sprawl without creating too much urban density?”

Given these interests in common, the cities are working to create a network for sharing their experiences, know-how, news and views. “We meet at events and organise them too,” he added. “For instance, our Agency organises tours of the Greater Paris region for foreign visitors, like the mayor of Toronto, for example, who came over in October 2019 to see our new solution for affordable housing. Then, in November 2019, we were in Hong Kong to meet with MTR (Mass Transit Railway, the local public transport network). This engagement with our foreign counterparts is extremely important.”

Think tank Another mission for the Agency is acting as a kind of ‘think tank’ for governments and companies at local and national levels, both pushing for and carrying out

LESLEY BROWN

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

proposals to boost the appeal of the Greater Paris region. As an example, the Agency is exploring the challenges of energy sustainability.

“By 2030, the total energy needed to power the Grand Paris Express, plus all the new housing and industrial activities under the Greater Paris umbrella, will represent the output of three nuclear power plants!” Alexandre Missoffe said.

“Of course, we won’t be building these plants - the energy won’t be produced within the Paris region, but sourced further afield,” he hastened to add.

However, for companies such as manufacturers in the auto industry, for instance, the cost of energy rather than salaries is more of a priority. This is down to latest generation 4.0 factories that require fewer workers but more and more computers, robotics, machines and equipment that consume a lot of energy.

“So, if you are a car manufacturer or a company in a high energy consuming industry, the cost of energy is a key criterion when deciding where to locate your business,” explained Mr Missoffe.

FEATURE “Today, they have to anticipate increases in energy demand and are looking for an affordable, carbon-free and safe energy supply system for the decades to come.

Hence, the reason we are working on this strategic topic, amongst others, with the French Government.”

Innovation, time and risk-taking “If we were to build the Grand Paris Express we are building today 100 years from now, it wouldn’t be cheaper or quicker, and probably not better,” reckons Mr Missoffe. “This is one of the great paradoxes of innovation in the construction industry.”

Building the Paris Metro was approved in 1898 and the first line opened in 1900, 15 months later. But, for this latest transport system, the law was adopted in 2010 and the first line, a section of Line 16, is scheduled to open in 2024. Why so long?

“There’s a tendency to be more risk averse for the core structural elements of all major construction projects, like Greater Paris, that involve large sums of public money, that are on tight deadlines and are very much in the media spotlight,” believes Mr Missoffe.

“The people and companies involved in the project don’t want to be the ones responsible for a major delay or accident.

Consequently, when given the choice between one technology or technique that seems to go faster, is cheaper and better, and another that has been proven over the past 15 years, they tend to opt for the latter.”

“Some new technologies were used when tunnelling Line 14 of the Paris metro under the city and there were issues,” says Mr Missoffe. “Most memorably in 2003, when the playground of a school in the 13th district of Paris [south of the city] collapsed!”

Fortunately, this incident occurred in the early hours of a Saturday morning, so nobody was hurt. However, all the engineering firms who worked on this line are now working on the Grand Paris Express. Bearing in mind the risk, they are naturally tending to stay on the safe side by using proven technologies.

“In my view, it’s absurd to build a network for 2030 using technologies that are decades old,” commented Mr Missoffe. “Surely we should be exploring next generation innovations for 2050.”

On the upside, however, he pointed out how this risk aversion doesn’t rule out innovating in other, less ‘risky’ areas, such as regenerative braking for the metro trains and geothermics, re-using tunnelling waste, testing new types of fibre-reinforced concrete, or boring with a Vertical Shaft Sinking Machine to save time and space.

Mountains of paperwork The construction schedule is also being impacted by today’s stringent safety regulations and labour laws, “mountains of paperwork”, environmental obligations for protecting fauna and flora, and efforts to disrupt inhabitants as little as possible.

A far cry from the ‘good old days’ when constructing Line 1 of the Paris network.

“Back in the day, they literally cut Paris in half for 15 months to build using the cut and cover method,” pointed out Mr Missoffe. “Today, creating such massive disruption to Parisians is totally out of the question!”

But, as he rightly points out, all these constraints are not unique to the Greater Paris project, but a tendency for all major construction projects.

Laying down the law To a certain extent, special legislation has helped overcome some loopholes that might otherwise have slowed up progress even further. In 2010, the French Parliament passed a law, the Greater Paris Act, granting special powers, including for expropriation.

According to French law, the subsoil under a property right down to the centre of the earth belongs to the property owner.

When tunnelling under it, constructors generally pay compensation of around

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

63

64

FEATURE

three euros per square metre. However, when apartment buildings are involved, with multiple owners, the process becomes more complicated.

“You divide the compensation between the flat owners, but if any of them disagree, you have to settle in court,” explains Mr Missoffe. “Now, bear in mind we’re talking about tunnelling under 20,000 properties for the Grand Paris Express, the majority of which are apartment buildings. Imagine the time, the number of lawyers and judges, and money it would have taken to settle all the compensation disputes. It would take years!”

Fortunately, the new decree waives the obligation to make payments to property owners when tunnelling at a certain depth. Above this level, even if the volume of subsoil in question is technically worth just one euro, it pays out a minimum flat rate of €2,000. Problem sorted?

“Well, yes, this part of the construction might well have posed a challenge, but fortunately we anticipated and resolved it,” said Mr Missoffe.

Jobs to build, and beyond...

Who’s awarded the contracts to build the Grand Paris Express? “People might think that, since it’s a state-funded project, French firms get preferential treatment.

But this isn’t the case,” Mr Missoffe insisted. “There’s so much work that we need both French and foreign companies to meet the deadlines. Indeed, major parts of the project have been allocated to foreign companies and the French are happy about this because they need these partners. Plus, they get to benefit from their expertise, know-how, and skills.”

At the same time, he says, the skills for building transport infrastructure are really lacking and becoming increasingly rare.

Furthermore, Greater Paris is competing with other global cities to attract the best workers.

“There are many other major projects planned or ongoing over the world, like Crossrail or Rail Baltica, so we are competing with our counterparts to

Money matters The Greater Paris Act also created the Société du Grand Paris (SGP), a special purpose body that manages the project and directly receives revenue from three taxes to reimburse the debt.

“In other words, this income, which amounts to around €700 million annually, can’t be used for any other purpose,” he explained. “Back in 2014, construction works had not started but the Société du Grand Paris was already provided with around four billion euros, a large amount exclusively secured for the future metro.

The money is now spent, creating a debt that will be gradually paid off.”

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

attract the best talents,” he explained.

“While engineers may well want to work for us, they might get offered a 20 per cent salary raise to join another project.

So yes, it’s a question of money and quality of life, but, most importantly, we are seeing a shortage of engineering talent for tunnelling work on major infrastructure projects.”

In addition to the jobs created to build the Grand Paris Express, once up and running, it is expected to significantly open up employment opportunities in the region. Line 16, for example, will provide a link between Clichy-sous-Bois, a suburb to the east of Paris with the highest unemployment rate in France, and Charles de Gaulle airport to the north. “There are thousands of jobs linked to the airport hub and logistics activities, but they can’t find people to fill them,” complained Mr Missoffe. “This is largely because people can’t access the jobs, since there is no transport infrastructure.”

FEATURE There are currently 2,140,000 inhabitants in inner Paris and two million jobs. “This is ridiculous! The right balance is one job for every two inhabitants,” he exclaimed. “But today, because of this imbalance, plus the fact that the current transport systems (Metro and RER commuter rail network) are radial and all feed into the centre of Paris, too many people are travelling in and out of the city to work.”

This explains why much is riding on the orbital Grand Paris Express, which should encourage more people to live and work around Paris, and so relieve stress both on themselves and the existing transport systems.

Staying the course For the Greater Paris Investment Agency, keeping the initial vision in its sights is one of the big challenges ahead. “If we lose this vision, the project will become just the sum of many parts. There is a danger of skipping some parts of the whole so, at the end of the day, Greater Paris no longer makes the sense it should,” Mr Missoffe reckons. “Of course, we must adapt the vision approach over time, but always bearing in mind where we want to go with Paris for the next 200 years.”

Fortunately, support for Greater Paris has remained constant despite political shifts over the years. “The project was launched by President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009, then President François Hollande followed in 2012. While the latter certainly didn’t agree with a lot of what his predecessor had said and done, he kept the project on track. As has President Macron today.”

The 131 local communities making up the Greater Paris region support political parties across the political spectrum.

Yet, according to Mr Missoffe, they all

vote unanimously for every proposal concerning the project - the Grand Paris Express and urban development plans.

“Everyone is in favour, regardless of their agendas. They might disagree over the details of a proposal, of course, but nobody wants Greater Paris on hold.”

Mr Missoffe summed up: “Paris and its region, Ile-de-France, currently generates one third of the country’s GDP, which is already massive. If the Greater Paris project works out, it will create employment, boost the attractivity of the region, and encourage new activities to locate here.”

Robust, rapid, pivoting, retractable, elegant & highly conductive — Furrer+Frey’s Rigid Overhead conductor Rail system ROCS is renowned throughout the world for its superior standards of quality & reliability.

In tunnels, in stations, in the open, on bridges, in workshops and depots, ROCS can easily adapt to any structure.

Furrer+Frey has supplied its groundbreaking ROCS system for more than 3400km of track across the globe and it is currently tested up to 302kph line speeds.

schweiz@furrerfrey.ch

@furrerfrey

www.furrerfrey.ch

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

65

66

FEATURE

Intelligent

TIM FLOWER

Infrastructure

explained

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE

I

ntelligent Infrastructure is Network Rail’s digital asset performance management programme, using technology to turn data into intelligent information so the frontline and supporting teams can work smarter and more safely to deliver improved services for passengers and freight customers.

Ultimately the goal is to reduce expenditure whilst improving infrastructure availability by: » Understanding the probability of individual asset failure; » Predicting when failure will occur; » Forecasting the impact on the operational railway; » Planning intervention prior to disruption to train services.

The programme isn’t just about introducing huge amounts of new technology, it has been carefully designed to look at how we can maximise the value from the data we have whilst working closely with our research and development programme to make sure we continue to be at the forefront of technology introduction.

The process applies failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), enabling us to assess and revise our maintenance standards and inform our infrastructure monitoring and asset management plans. By summer 2020, we are aiming to have completed the safety case utilising RCM2 techniques to remove some of our cyclical track circuit maintenance through reliance on embedded monitoring, which, if successful, will be rolled out across other asset types such as level crossings and busbars.

A further benefit of this process is that it allows us greater understanding of the legacy assets on our network, allowing us to pinpoint which asset types are unable to deliver the

Monitoring The outputs from the FMECA are also used to specify the deployment of asset monitoring. There are three main methods of monitoring assets depending on the requirements identified.

Embedded monitoring Assets are fitted with sensors that monitor their condition, reporting back to a central system known as RADAR. This is monitored 24/7 by Intelligent Infrastructure technicians who use the information provided by the system to predict an asset failure, providing guidance to front line teams to help us to diagnose the likely failure mode and prevent the failure occurring. Use of this type of monitoring is widespread in Network Rail, as shown in the diagram below.

The introduction of Internet of Things devices will increase this footprint massively in the coming years, so research and development is focusing on how we can generate the best return on investment from the myriad of sensors that are now available.

Train-borne monitoring

The building blocks of the programme.

People and culture transformation Throughout all stages of the programme, we have recognised that there will be significant changes to how our teams interact with data and technology, and how work will be specified, planned and delivered.

Successful delivery of our plans will rely on our ability to enthuse and inspire our teams to work with us through this change, giving them tools that they will want to use because it will make their working lives easier.

The cornerstone of the programme is the engineering assessment we undertake against each asset or asset system. This is performed utilising reliability-centred maintenance techniques that originated in the aviation industry and which were restructured to be applied across other industries by John Moubray in the 1980s, in a process he named RCM2.

availability requirements for a route section. This information is used to focus our research and development programme on creation of next generation assets, which are developed in accordance with our ‘design for reliability’ processes.

Currently, there are two separate approaches to this, either having a dedicated set of infrastructure measurement trains or by fitting monitoring equipment to in-service vehicles.

The use of a dedicated measurement fleet is much more mature, and we now have 13 dedicated vehicles measuring the profile, depth and internal and external cracks in rails, the condition of the formation and geometry of the track, contact force and position of the overhead line, the loading gauge and quality of the radio signals.

Assets already fitted with monitoring sensors.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

67

68

FEATURE PLPR camera.

The most recent innovations in this area are: » Plain-line pattern recognition (PLPR): With this system, pixel-width images of the track are recorded at up to 70,000 times per second across seven cameras. These images are integrated with laser profile and track geometry data and processed using machine vision to deliver defect reports to section managers, replacing the need to manually inspect plain line track.

So far, this has been rolled out across approximately 9,000 miles of track, with a further 5,000 miles planned for the future. » Eddy-current inspection: Another replacement for manual inspection, this helps us understand the extent of cracking in the surface of a rail as the system is able to measure the depth of cracks rather than just their length. This system is now live across much of the network. » Switches and Crossing (S&C) Dynamic Measurement: Here, we run a specialist train through the S&C in both the

normal and reverse position to give us a greater understanding of how it behaves under load.

Monitoring infrastructure using inservice trains is currently much less developed but has huge opportunities in the future to provide a near real-time indication of how the railway system is performing. Currently, several service trains have track geometry monitoring systems or accelerometers fitted and work is in development to utilise this data more completely in order to support maintenance activities. In 2020, a dynamic overhead line force measurement system will be fitted to an Avanti train on West Coast main line and work is progressing to fit similar systems onto East Coast and Great Western main lines.

One challenge that remains is the ability to predict driver-reported rough rides (DRRR). Drivers and traincrew are trained to report any suspicious vehicle movements to the control centre, in case there has been a sudden failure such as a rail break, track buckle or

PLPR screenshot.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

embankment failure which may pose a risk of derailment. This is a last line of defence because it is very unlikely that a sudden infrastructure failure will be picked up during routine asset measurement recordings, which only take place every four weeks.

The default response to a DRRR is to send a track maintenance team out to find what is wrong with the track and fix it. However, in most cases, and after many trains have been delayed, the maintenance intervention results in “No Fault Found”. We are launching a design contest to solve this issue, whilst also exploring the ability of smaller, simpler systems to give us an understanding of the track asset movement - without the need for full track geometry systems. It is expected that we will have prototypes in place and under trial within the next twelve months.

The ultimate aspiration from a trainborne measurement and monitoring perspective is to blend the right mix of dedicated measurement capability with inservice monitoring to ensure both safety and performance risks are mitigated.

Fixed monitoring Network Rail has several fixed monitoring systems that are installed on the infrastructure and monitor trains as they pass. These measure axle bearing condition, using hot axle-box detectors (HABD), wheel condition using wheel impact load detectors (WILD) and pantograph condition using pantograph monitoring devices. The information generated from these systems is shared with train operators to help them improve their management of the condition of their vehicles. In the event of a serious defect being detected, operational rules are in place to mitigate safety risks, such as vehicle derailment due to rail breaks.

Network Rail is now working with TOCs and FOCs (train and freight operating companies) to understand how these systems can be rolled out further, to provide greater coverage, or enhanced, for example to included acoustic bearing monitoring.

This review is also considering whether there is a requirement for additional wheel lathes across the network to enable proactive wheel turning. It is expected that an improved average condition will not only extend wheel life but will also reduce wear and tear on the rail and ballast, improving the whole life cost of track - truly a whole industry benefit!

FEATURE Twist measurement.

Baseline.

Analytics A huge amount of value will be derived from utilising advanced analytics and machine learning techniques to drive a greater understanding of asset condition and rates of degradation. These techniques, which will be applied across all asset systems, will use our existing data sources and also help us to understand what new data is required to drive efficiency and performance.

Initial delivery has concentrated on track and signalling, building on the decision support tools that we delivered as part of our ORBIS programme (issue 174, May 2019). For track, the initial challenge was to make sure the geometry measurement systems aligned across multiple runs to enable the degradation models to be as accurate as possible. The following diagram shows around 100 yards of twist measurements across three runs. Here the peaks and troughs of the measurements are offset between runs by approximately ten yards, making analysis difficult.

The teams have developed an algorithm that sets a baseline run and shifts all other runs to align to this baseline, as demonstrated in the above diagram, which shows seven runs over one mile, now in complete alignment.

The aligned data can then be used to predict when the track will degrade past alert and intervention limits, allowing intervention to be planned proactively.

Next to be delivered is cyclic top capability, which is being delivered in instalments. The first instalment will focus on a visualisation of the data to help maintenance teams get a better understanding of the nature and potential cause of the fault and how it might progress.

Future capability will begin to add predictive elements to the tool, showing the rate of degradation of cyclic top faults and highlighting any sites which are expected to become faults shortly. This will allow maintenance teams to plan their interventions earlier and treat a defect before it affects the service.

For signalling the teams are initially focusing on delivering diagnostic and predictive capability from the points and track circuit condition monitoring data. An example of how we are utilising the points data is below:

These are just some of the examples of analytics we plan to deploy as part of the programme. We have now mobilised the delivery teams and expect to be delivering capability across all disciplines from late 2020 onwards.

Visualising the railway When Network Rail rolled out imagery and data from the first national aerial survey in 2016, it marked a major milestone in railway analysis and early project work that could be carried out from the safety of the office.

Using the Geo-RINM Viewer, planning and maintenance teams could carry out inspections, measurements and analysis of the railway without the need for manual inspections.

Desktop access to high-resolution images and 3D digital terrain and surface model data, the survey – carried out by the ORBIS

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

69

70

FEATURE programme – proved a resounding success. Routes were soon requesting updated data to keep pace with the changes taking place across the infrastructure.

To meet this demand the Intelligent Infrastructure programme was asked to develop and improve on the first survey. Working with Network Rail’s Air Operations team, new surveys were carried out over the past two winters – benefiting from reduced leaf and foliage cover to improve clarity of the network. This refreshed data is now being rolled out to the routes. Date labels and time sliders have been added to allow comparisons between old and new imagery so that accurate earthwork changes can be measured and changes to the infrastructure can be clearly seen.

Planning Currently we use lots of different planning tools that have been developed by different routes, which means planning is inconsistent across Network Rail.

The tools have been developed by local experts, which means that, while they are fit for purpose, they aren’t supported by our IT department. As a result, they often require a lot of ‘handle turning’ to update their core information and they can’t talk to other systems. This means that allocating people, materials and equipment to deliver the work in the access available is difficult and time consuming.

The planning workstream has therefore been scoped to create a new common set of planning tools holding information on the whole network. These will be supported by Route Services Information Technology (RSIT) and Asset Information Services (AIS), which can be adapted to suit different routes and regions as they choose.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

There are three main outputs to this work: 1. Asset Lifecycle Planning System: This will help to manage the long and short-term workbank, helping to optimise maintenance and renewals work efficiently and effectively.

2. Work Planning and Scheduling System: This new scheduling system will take information from across the whole network and create schedules, taking into account unplanned work, asset conditions, criticality, best access times, resource available, materials and equipment. Work schedules will become more stabilised. This will help make plans more stable in the long term, allowing for work to be planned in a safer manner.

3. Time Recording System: This will accurately record the time Network Rail staff have spent at work against various activities, reducing administration and helping managers to understand the true unit cost of a job.

Execution We have already deployed handheld devices to our frontline teams and supported management and engineering staff. To date, Network Rail has launched over 60 ‘apps’ to help our teams deliver effectively and efficiently, and all our analytics capability will be mobile device compatible.

In late 2020, we will make our condition monitoring trace information available to our faulting and maintenance teams, enabling them to check in real time that their activity has delivered the planned output.

The next steps will be to bring all our disparate data sources into an application that gives all the applicable information about a particular asset to our teams to enable them to pinpoint faulting activity, enabling a faster fix. The teams will be able to update this information on site with measurements or asset information, which will then be used to drive analytics improvements.

The goal with all our mobile capability is to provide the end user with a quality interface that is simple to use, intuitive, provides them with the information they require and only asks for input where it is absolutely necessary. In this respect, there is room for improvement with a lot of our apps, and we will be working closely with end users to give them what they need.

Delivering at pace We have, wherever possible, introduced an agile methodology to deliver incremental capability, obtaining regular feedback from end users to drive future development.

By delivering something that users can both use and provide feedback on immediately, we are able to iterate through the development cycle every two weeks to quickly deliver an end product that meets all of their needs. Previously, it has taken up to two years from requirements gathering to an end user seeing a product, now it can be as little as two months for a first release!

We are starting to see the first benefits of the new way of working. More consistent and connected data will enable us to make earlier and better decisions that will result in a safer and more reliable infrastructure, both reducing our expenditure on emergency repairs and giving our customers and passengers a more reliable service - all through Intelligent Infrastructure.

Tim Flower is professional head of maintenance at Network Rail.

Digital Surface Model (Hillshade) created from LiDAR data acquired in Winter 2018.

FEATURE

A little sand

in the right place MALCOLM DOBELL

works wonders Part 4, Passenger Service

I

n this series so far, Rail Engineer has reported on the tests of Double Variable Rate Sanders (DVRS - a new acronym is born) on a Class 387 Electrostar at the RIDC Melton (issue 157, November 2017), the encouraging results of those trials (issue 163, May 2018) and driver-familiarisation runs on Class 323 units from the Birmingham Cross City line (issue 179, November 2019). If, dear reader, you have detected a pattern, you will be expecting to see a report of the results of those trials - you will not be disappointed!

RSSB, which has sponsored all this work with the support and cooperation of many other organisations, had set up two dissemination events for late March and early April 2020, but due to the national Coronavirus emergency, the events were transferred to webinars, and this is your writer’s first ever report of a webinar!

It was also the first webinar to hold his attention for the whole event, but that’s another matter!

Congratulations to Giulia Lorenzini for organising the technology and to the speakers for mastering the remote presentation technique with little notice.

In-service pilot, option selection Rail Engineer’s report on the results of the 2017 tests (issue 163, May 2018) signed off with the comment: “The next

steps are to implement the results with pace and passion; a significant challenge.”

A number of train-operating companies approached RSSB volunteering parts of their fleets to act as host for a service trial (see panel for the list of fleets considered).

Liam Purcell, principal consultant from Ricardo, outlined the process used to select the trial fleet/operator. Feasibility studies were carried out for each fleet covering technical factors such as space, structure for attachment of sand hoppers, whether the electrical and air supplies were sufficient, and the ability to connect to the various controls, such as wheel-slide protection (WSP).

The nature of the operation was also considered, including the route and whether there were already pre-existing performance/adhesion concerns.

Candidate fleets considered for the in-service trial: » Class 444 (South West Railway) » Class 172 (West Midlands Trains) » Class 323 (West Midlands Trains) » Class 318 (ScotRail) » Class 320 (ScotRail) » Class 334 (ScotRail) » Class 380 (ScotRail) » Class 321 (Greater Anglia) » Class 170 (Northern Rail)

The studies showed that it was feasible to fit DVRS to all the candidate fleets, but the West Midlands Trains’ (WMT) Class 323 was chosen because the Birmingham Cross City line is known to suffer autumn adhesion issues and the installation and interface were comparatively challenging.

Three key issues affected the installation: limited space to install the sanders on the intermediate vehicle of the three-car units, potential inhibition of return current caused by additional sand and limited availability of spare units for DVRS fitment.

Layout of sanders and bogie/axle numbers.

BOGIE 1

1

2

BOGIE 2

3

4

BOGIE 3

5

6

BOGIE 4

7

8

BOGIE 5

9 10

BOGIE 6

11 12

ACTIVE SANDERS IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DRIVEN AXLES

TRAILING AXLES

CURRENT RETURN

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

71

72

FEATURE Increased size of DVRS hoppers (right, red outline).

Return current The return-current issue had been identified in the planning for the 2017 tests but was managed as a risk at the time. For this work, the issue had to be resolved. On the Class 323, the primary traction-return axles are numbers 6 and 7 - the inner axles in the intermediate pantograph trailer car.

These are also the axles where the additional sanders were to be located, so there was concern that the extra sand might affect the traction return path.

A practical instrumented test was developed, the first stage of which involved manually applying sand to the running rail and running bogie 4 over it. Bogie 3 has a slightly shorter current path through its cable than bogie 4, so more current flows that way, making bogie 4 the worst case.

The test demonstrated that current was transferred from bogie 4 to bogie 3 as a result of the sand but remained via the traction return axles, so sand was applied manually under both bogies. The level of current returned via alternative paths (not through bogies 3 and 4) was measured with sanding up to 8g/m (above the 7.5g/m limit), current continued to be returned to the running rails via bogies 3 and 4, with rapid deterioration as the sand deposition increased further; a successful test.

In order to monitor performance of the brakes and the sanding systems, equipment to allow remote condition monitoring (RCM) was installed on both the DVRS units and four unmodified “control” units. This equipment monitors a number of channels at 20Hz (see list) which worked continuously through autumn 2019.

Remote Condition Monitoring Instrumented Systems: » GPS Speed » GPS Location » Brake Cylinder Pressures (x 6) » Brake Step » Main Reservoir Pressure (x 2) » ED Brake Achieved (x 2) » Direction (x 2) » Acceleration » WSP Activity (x 3) » Sanding Activity (x 4) » Sand Level (x 3) » Low Sand Alarm (x 3) » Cab Speedometer (x 2) » Cab Active (x 2) » Doors Open (x 2)

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

It had been intended to complete the installation for autumn 2018, but the challenges of fitting sophisticated equipment to older trains reared their ugly heads, including noise on the WSP channels, interference on speedometer and door signals, and spurious tripping of circuit breakers.

Class 323 installation Mick Milhinch, engineering director of AB Rail, part of AB Hoses & Fittings, explained the design and fitment of the DVRS. Mick described his company as the “one stop shop” for all sander system needs. Its Advanced Automatic Sander is a computer-controlled system which is capable of taking any input or logic from the train and configuring those inputs to provide the required sander operation and delivery rate.

This is based on two CPUs (central processing units).

CPU 1 (the brains of the system) interfaces with and is mounted on the train - it communicates with CPU 2, which is mounted on the sander raft and controls the sanders. One CPU 1

Sander Raft showing CPU 2.

can control two sander-system rafts (as is the case on the intermediate car).

The system is equipped with a data logger, GPS, 4G and Wi-Fi. For the trial, it was interfaced with the RCM system described by Liam.

The mechanical parts are all mounted on a raft that fits across the width of the underframe.

Mick said one of the key requirements was to keep the sand dry, and it was decided to double the size of the hoppers to a capacity of approximately 60kg even though sand consumption was not expected to increase. Higher capacity and a sensor to advise sand levels all contribute to reducing the need to open the hopper, helping to keep the sand dry. This did mean pushing the gauge and structural limits.

Mick added that all the efforts to keep the sand dry will come to naught if the air supply is contaminated, adding: “However good you think the train air supply quality is, or are told it is, it won’t be good enough.” Needless to say, the new sander raft incorporates an air filter and dryer.

FEATURE Fried electronics.

There was little space available on the intermediate vehicle to install a raft, so a custom design was developed that, for standardisation, was also used on the end vehicles.

The intent was to base the new designs on the excellent original drawings, until the following note was found on the drawing which, putting it politely, sounded a note of caution: “Method of hopper construction to be at the discretion of the fabricator”.

In practice, the existing hoppers deviated significantly from the drawing and the CAD (computer-aided design) model had to be created from scratch, with much double and triple-checking that the vehicles actually conformed to the dimensions on other original drawings.

Installation was also a challenge, simply because of fleet utilisation, but this was overcome by kitting, bespoke transportation, storage and installation equipment pit boards, stillages, skates, lifting frames, jacks etc. and by breaking installation down into discrete packages.

Following installation of each package, the train could go back into service with original sanders still fitted and working until DVRS rafts were installed last of all.

Mick described another unexpected problem, as all four CPU 1 units were exposed to significant over-voltage between the brake 0V and brake-step wires.

These had been designed to cope with 165V on the normal 110V supply, which conforms with EN 50155 and, in AB Hoses previous experience, such protection had been satisfactory. No explanation for the phenomenon was found but the overvoltage protection was increased to 600V and there has been no more trouble. As Mick put it: “Over voltage is believed to be a normal operating characteristic of the class 323 fleet.”

Mick summarised the lessons learned: 1. Be very, very, very cautious when using historical drawings; trust nothing unless you’ve checked it for yourself against the real thing; 2. Rafts/hoppers can be made to fit just about anywhere but this needs thought and careful design; 3. It is possible to install DVRS in and around a normal running and maintenance regime and a full train can be installed between peaks/ overnight; 4. Don’t assume the train works as expected when it comes to interfacing existing and new systems just because the train isn’t failing now - gather real data before designing or else over-engineer!

He also identified two issues that might apply to other fleets. Firstly, the speed signal needs to be accessed for the DVRS system and doing so on an existing vehicle might involve risking

the performance of existing train speed signals. He said that AB Hoses is working on a doppler radar speedometer to be incorporated into the raft.

Secondly, it is often necessary to get signals from inside the vehicle end cubicle to the underframe and thence to the rafts where the wiring does not exist and, whilst precedent was set on the Class 323 for using flexible conduit and drilling holes in body end and underframe equipment case, this might not be an option on some of the other classes assessed. He said that his company is working on “power line communication technology”.

Mick also pointed out the importance of the sand delivery hose alignment.

For some reason - lost in the mists of time - the Class 323 delivery hoses had been aligned to fire sand in the direction of the tread/flange area and most of the sand was falling on the ballast. This was noticed but had been assumed to be satisfactory because it had been in service for so long. However, results in commissioning were poor and the hoses were realigned, after which the expected performance was delivered another lesson in not taking anything for granted!

Mick’s parting shot was “It’s all about the sand! All of the clever design and application comes to naught if the sand isn’t clean, dry and in the nip!”

Sand delivery nozzle alignment, original (left), modified (right).

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

73

74

FEATURE Train braking While some modern multiple unit trains have infinitely variable braking, older multiple units have three (or sometimes four) braking ‘steps’. Step 1 is a light brake application, step 2 is a harder application of the brakes, and step 3 is the full-service brake. There can also be a higher-rate emergency brake, used, for example, when an obstruction is seen on the line.

Sanding is enabled in steps 2 and 3.

The effectiveness of each step is measured in the deceleration of the train. There are two ways of presenting this - either actual deceleration in metres per second squared (m/s²) or as a percentage of the normal acceleration (or deceleration) due to gravity. This is 9.81 metres per second squared (9.81 m/s²) (32 feet per second per second in old units), so a deceleration of 10% g would be 0.981 m/s².

Each step is designed to deliver at least a defined performance on level dry track and, for example, step 2 might be described as delivering 6% g. In practice, the actual performance depends on gradient, rail conditions, and wheel diameter.

Formula One motor racing fans will have heard commentators talking about the “g forces” that the drivers experience. With light weight, carbon fibre brakes, aerodynamics that promote downforce and wide sticky tyres that won’t slide, they can decelerate at up to five times g (5 g = 49.05 m/s²), compared with a conventional road car that can deliver, at best, 0.8-1.2 times g.

Trains on steel rails slide a lot more easily, so 13% g is generally the best they can achieve, given adhesion levels normally accepted, unless other techniques such as magnetic track brakes are fitted. After that, the wheels lock, the train slides, and deceleration actually decreases - as well as causing damage to the track.

The Class 323 trains in these tests have the three steps plus emergency brake system and the actual results obtained during the tests were:

Measured brake rate (Class 323)

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

The results Andrew Lightoller, principal mechanical engineer at DB ESG, continued the story.

In October 2019, familiarisation runs were carried out on a section of the line just north of Redditch, as described in issue 179. This work was intended to demonstrate the system to WMT’s management and drivers and to give the latter the opportunity to experience DVRS in low adhesion conditions for themselves.

As a by-product, the team was able to evaluate the impact of DVRS controlled by the WSP, compared with the original trials at RIDC where the sanding was manually controlled.

The results were impressive. Compared with unsanded operation in brake step 1 (nominal brake rate 4.2% g), where the achieved brake rate on very low adhesion was, on average, 2.7% g, DVRS operation on very low adhesion consistently achieved a step 2 brake

rate around 6% g. This means that the braking distance was approximately halved. Even in low adhesion, Step 2 with DVRS provides a deceleration greater than the nominal step 1 brake performance, which is the assumed brake rate used in the spring and summer to meet the demands of the cross-city timetable.

As reported in issue 179, both drivers and management were impressed with the familiarisation runs and WMT was happy to use the system in service during the autumn season. Some 115,000 qualifying braking events were recorded on the DVRS and the ‘control’ units between October and mid-December 2019. Analysis showed that, of the total distance travelled whilst braking, 94% was under step 1 braking (without sand) and only approximately 5% was under step 2. The percentages were remarkably similar for both the DVRS and the control units.

FEATURE

This indicated that professional driving practices, which encourage step 1 braking, are deeply ingrained. With only five per cent of the braking being above step 1, and thus capable of deploying sand, it was recognised that driver technique needs to change to benefit from DVRS. Andrew reported that WMT was keen to confirm benefits following the familiarisation runs. A back to back test run was therefore undertaken on 5 December 2019 - a leaf fall “amber” day - where the rail head looked damp but clean. Unit 323 205 (control) operated using the WMT’s professional driving policy and unit 323 215 (DVRS) operated using full braking capability. There was a single occurrence of wheelslide, but it was not significant.

Sander type

It was notable that driver confidence in the DVRS was such that the train would typically be driven to a higher maximum speed. This, together with the step 3 brake, delivered a run time improvement of approximately eight seconds between stations.

After the presentations, Andrew commented that another benefit of the sanders, whether single variablerate sanders (SVRS) or DVRS, is in the consistency of low adhesion stops.

Referring back to the 2017 trials, the longest stopping distance experienced from 55mph for unsanded low adhesion runs was over three times the shortest.

Shortest stop (m)

Whereas for DVRS the longest was just 37% higher with other configurations in between, as seen in the illustration and table - see below.

Moreover, the longest stopping distance for DVRS was shorter than the shortest unsanded run.

In summary, this has been a further validation of the benefits of DVRS. A middle-aged train equipped with DVRS delivered performance at least as good as the original sander tests in 2017 and there has been very positive feedback from train drivers. There does need to be a review of professional driving policies to gain the full benefit of DVRS and RSSB is working on this with its partners.

Rail Engineer looks forward to further developments.

Thanks to Paul Gray, Aaron Barrett, and Emma Bassey, RSSB, and the speakers mentioned for their assistance in producing this article

Longest stop (m)

Ratio

Unsanded

531

1691

3.18

Single fixed-rate sander (SFRS)

365

970

2.66

Single variable-rate sanders (SVRS)

382

648

1.70

Double variable-rate sanders (DVRS)

345

472

1.37

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

75

76

FEATURE

PAUL DARLINGTON

M

erseyrail is the commuter rail network serving Liverpool and is one of the most heavily used urban railway networks outside London. It consists of two dedicated DC third-rail electrified lines known as the Northern line and Wirral line, creating a metro-style network of local passenger rail services within Merseyside and adjacent areas of Cheshire and Lancashire, including a number of underground stations.

A number of organisations are involved. Merseyrail is the operator, currently run by Serco-Abellio under a contract which runs until 2028. Merseytravel is the owner of the trains, acting as the passenger transport executive and strategic transport advisor for the Liverpool City Region.

Over the years, Merseyrail has pioneered a number of control and communications initiatives and is currently rolling out new ‘connected’ trains.

The network normally carries 110,000 passengers on weekdays and a total of 34 million passengers per year along its 75 miles of route with 68 stations. Six stations and 6.5 miles of route are underground. It can be a surprise to some visitors arriving at Liverpool Lime Street main station to find ‘full size’ trains entering the underground platform every few minutes.

The Northern line links underground stations at Liverpool Central and Moorfields with Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby and Hunts Cross, while the Wirral line ‘loop’ links underground stations at James Street, Moorfields, Lime Street and Liverpool Central with Hamilton Square the other side of the Mersey River and on to Chester, Ellesmere Port, New Brighton and West Kirby.

Conway Park station was opened in 1998 to provide a station more convenient for the town centre of Birkenhead than either Birkenhead Park or Hamilton Square, but it doesn’t have “Birkenhead” in its name and can be mistaken for Conwy station in North Wales. Conway Park was built by excavating a box

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

FEATURE

NEW ‘CONNECTED’ TRAINS downwards, opening out the roof of the tunnel, and is 18 metres (59ft) below ground level. Even though it is below ground level, it is not subject to the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations due to its open construction.

The network currently operates a fleet of 59 Class 507 and Class 508 three-car electric multiple unit trains. These were constructed in the late 70s and are in the process of being replaced by a fleet of 52 (with an option for 60 more) new Class 777 custom-built train sets made specifically for the Merseyrail network by Stadler Rail. Interestingly, the trains are being financed by Liverpool City Region itself, rather than by a bank or leasing company.

Sandhills IECC The Merseyrail network is predominantly signalled from an integrated electronic control centre (IECC) located near to Sandhills station to the north of the city and called Sandhills IECC. The IECC controls a Remote Relay Interlocking (RRI) at Rock Ferry for part of the Wirral Line, with Solid State Interlocking (SSI) for the rest of the Sandhills control area.

The IECC has two signalling positions. One for the Northern Lines and one for the Wirral Lines, two separate CCTV crossing keeper positions and an electric control operator for the DC traction supply.

While making Merseyrail a completely independent, ‘vertically integrated’ railway has been proposed in the past, one of the problems with this proposal is that the IECC signalling arrangements are not unique to Merseyrail and the IECC does not control all of the Merseyrail network. The IECC also controls part of the Manchester to Southport line nearer the Southport end of the route, together with the Borderlands line between Bidston

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

77

78

FEATURE

and Dee Marsh Junction. Between Brunswick and Hunts Cross, the Northern line is signalled from Hunts Cross Power Signal Box (PSB) and south of Hooton railway station the Wirral line is signalled from Chester PSB. Both Hunts Cross and Chester PSBs control other parts of the national network and extensive resignalling would be required to make Merseyrail signalling self-contained.

The separate CCTV crossing positions in the IECC are required for the large number of CCTV-monitored crossings on the Northern line, which are too many for a signaller to monitor and control.

The IECC also has a separate operational control facility within the building. This is for train service management, incident management, operational people resources, fleet planning and maintenance, customer information, underground fire detection, public address and the monitoring of help points - all assisted by a comprehensive CCTV system.

In addition to individual CCTV monitors for each operator, there is a CCTV video wall with 32 flat screen monitors. There is also an automatic camera viewing link so that, in the event of an automatic fire alarm activation in the underground, assigned CCTV cameras for a particular alarm area will be automatically activated on the video wall.

The CCTV system was originally provided in the 70s for the five sub-surface stations, with black and white pictures and monitored from a control room at Moorfields. Only certain cameras were fitted with zoom lenses. Following the King Cross Fire in 1987 and the subsequent Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989, the CCTV was upgraded to colour and with more cameras featuring pan, tilt and zoom, along with fire resistant cabling.

Automatic fire detection with integrated public address was also provided and, when control was transferred to the IECC in 1993, additional surface stations were connected to the system.

Over the years the CCTV system has been expanded and upgraded, so that today the system monitors an impressive 70 stations and depots with over 1,000 cameras. It does not stop there, as over the next two years many of the cameras will be upgraded to all IP (internet protocol) types. Telent is the designer for the upgrade.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

To comply with the sub-surface fire regulations in 1994, a comprehensive radio system was also installed to operate in all parts of the underground, including stations and running tunnels.

Radio channels were provided for the then VHF National Radio Network (NRN), British Transport Police (BTP), Fire Authority and UHF Cab Secure Radio (CSR) to enable all trains to communicate with signallers.

The CSR system was also provided with radio masts on the above-ground parts of the network to facilitate 100 per cent train to signaller radio coverage. The functionality of the system was very similar to today’s GSM-R system, only it was provided years before the latter was conceived.

The BTP VHF channel was replaced with the Tetra Airwave System in the 1990s and the BTP VHF frequencies re-licensed for railway use - all operating over the same ‘leaky’ feeder infrastructure. The CSR system has now been replaced by GSM-R, with its own unique leaky feeder.

New trains and Wi-Fi The current 507/508 fleet, despite being one of the oldest on the network, appear surprisingly modern with a reasonable ride, good visibility and comfortable seats. The units have lasted well, as they were last refurbished 17 years ago when they were provided with new high-backed seating, interior panels, lighting, and a passenger information system.

However, the new trains will be even better and are ‘state of the art’ articulated four-car units, with 50 per cent higher capacity and faster acceleration and deceleration to reduce journey times by up to 10 per cent. They are also 5.5 tonnes lighter, with more efficient electrical systems, and so use 20 per cent less energy. They will feature free Wi-Fi, including coverage in tunnels and underground stations, along with high-quality CCTV and voice links between the trains and Merseyrail’s control centre in Sandhills IECC. The system will also provide data on the exact number of passengers on each train to enable better management of the network.

The Class 777 is a new design, specific to the Merseyrail network. The two longer driving cars at each end will only have one set of twin doors on each side, while the two middle trailer cars will have two sets. The trains will also have sliding steps as

FEATURE

‘gap fillers’ between the train and the platform, which will mean passengers using a wheelchair will not have to use a ramp when boarding, improving accessibility for all users.

Each train will also be provided with power and USB sockets and bike racks. Instead of having partition doors between each carriage, the articulated units form one large open space. Like the current Class 507 and 508 trains, the Class 777s will not be provided with toilets as journeys are considered to be too short to warrant them.

As well as providing improved passenger facilities, the new trains are future-proofed by having dual-voltage capability (25kV AC overhead supply as well as DC third rail). This could possibly allow them to operate beyond the third-rail DC electrification infrastructure to destinations such as Helsby, Preston, Skelmersdale, Warrington and Wrexham, as any future extension

of the third rail traction system in unlikely to be approved due to the risk to people on the track.

The trains will also be fitted with small battery sets, for easy movement around workshops and depots. It could also permit them to move to the next station in the event of a traction power failure, but this would depend on the distance as it isn’t the prime aim of this feature.

As has been mentioned, the trains are being provided by a self-financing, sustainable business model with no rolling stock company or rolling stock leasing company involved. This is a natural extension of devolution and will deliver savings in energy, maintenance and operations plus additional revenues flow to Merseytravel, which will become the UK’s only public-sector mainline rolling-stock owner.

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

79

80

FEATURE

It has also been decided to contract maintenance for the new fleet, so the deal for the new trains with Stadler includes modernisation of the train maintenance depots at Kikdale and Birkenhead North, along with the provision of a new driving-cab simulator.

Steve Rotheram, Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, said: “We are investing nearly half a billion pounds in a new, publicly-owned fleet for the Merseyrail network and the infrastructure it will run on. This will increase capacity, reduce travel times and provide a better experience for the travelling public. Our new fleet will be one of the best connected in the world, which not only means that people can use their smart phones or tablets via Wi-Fi, it also means a safer and more responsive network.”

Infrastructure works Extensive platform adjustments and track realignments have been required to accommodate the new trains and their sliding steps that improve passenger accessibility. The work has taken place on 97 platforms at 56 stations across the Merseyrail network using a rolling programme between October 2018 and May 2019. The programme was designed to minimise disruption to passengers wherever possible.

The existing trains Class 507/508 trains are 60.7 metres long for a three-car unit and 121.4 metres for a six-car unit. The new trains are longer - 65 metres for a four-car unit and 130 metres for an eight-car - with a 50 per cent passenger capacity increase, so platform lengthening, signal moves and track lengthening in the reversing siding at Liverpool Central have also been required.

The Class 777 trains will deliver a 10 per cent journey time reduction partly through improved acceleration, so they will require a more reliable traction power infrastructure to address voltage drop and increase current from 4kA to 5.4kA. Three new bulk supply points are being provided by Scottish Power, along with eight new substations and extensive cable upgrades.

New high-capacity Wi-Fi Panasonic is providing an extensive new trackside network-wide Wi-Fi system. This will provide 100Mbps data connectivity to all trains and will enable high-quality, real time CCTV, voice and data links between the trains and the Sandhills control centre. This

Rail Engineer | Issue 184 | May/June 2020

impressive initiative, which will also provide free internet access for passengers, is known as the Merseytravel Train Connectivity and Information System (TCIS).

There are several elements forming the TCIS: » The Optical Fibre Network (OFN): This will provide full system connectivity across the Merseyrail network, achieved by installing a 432-fibre optic cable providing full fibre connectivity linking the new equipment within the Sandhills control room to all the station and trackside access points across the TCIS network. » Trackside radio: The full coverage will be achieved by strategically located eight-metre tilt monopole mast antenna/ access points at station and trackside locations, to assure that there are no signal drop zones and the trains are in constant communications with the station and trackside access points. » On-Board radio: A mobile radio unit will be installed at each end of the train. All data traffic to and from the train will go via an on-board router for the purpose of network monitoring and to restrict access to trusted users only. » Ethernet network: The managed Ethernet network will provide a 1Gbps managed link between each mast site and the nearest station. This will give provision for a chain of ten access sites on a single 10G circuit, providing remote management for each access site along with spare switch capacity for future expansion.

The revisions to the existing Merseyrail operations in Sandhills IECC will consist of a single TCIS workstation on each of the existing and proposed operator work positions and two 49-inch monitors with a multi view option for viewing six to eight cameras on one screen.

Best performing operator Merseyrail has been amongst the top best-performing train operators for many years, winning the ‘best-performing regional rail operator’ award at the 2019 Golden Whistle Awards, with 96 per cent of trains running on time.

It was also named ‘most punctual operator’ in 2019 and came top in the national rail passenger survey for Autumn 2019.

The new Class 777 trains, with their state-of-the-art facilities, performance and communications, can only drive further improvements for Merseyrail’s customers.

Britain’s Largest Specialist Transport Union

During the COVID-19 emergency RMT’s priorities remain the...

■ HEALTH ■ SAFETY ■ LIVELIHOODS of all our members

We are right at your side. JOIN US TODAY. Protecting our members’ interests is our priority

Join us today www.rmt.org.uk

FREEPHONE 0800 376 3706

Shaping Melbourne Australia Are you interested in joining the project team at Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) that is involved in multibillion dollar city-shaping infrastructure projects?

Did you know? Metro Trains Melbourne is part of the MTR family, with global reach across Europe, Asia, Australia and the Middle East.

Can you bring your wealth of experience to help us support the delivery of Melbourne’s two largest rail infrastructure projects?

THE METRO TUNNEL PROJECT The A$11 billion Metro Tunnel will untangle the city loop so more trains can run more effectively across Melbourne. The Metro Tunnel scope includes twin nine-kilometre rail tunnels, five new underground stations as well as new high capacity signalling. The Metro Tunnel Project is being delivered in three work packages, with a programme-level team assisting each package. The three work packages are: Rail Systems Alliance, Rail Infrastructure Alliance and the Tunnels and Stations Public Private Partnership.

> KEY METRO TUNNEL PROJECT ROLES: Delivery Manager – Systems

Operations & Maintenance Readiness Manager

Lead the business change required to support Victoria’s ‘Big Build’ Infrastructure Program, specifically relating to the Metro Tunnel Project (MTP). You will ensure the safe delivery of the MTP Systems, a team of over 100 people and a turnover of over A$50m, acting as the alternative Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) for MTM, supporting the Project Director.

Provide a line-based focus to the various O&M team members across the MTP packages and High Capacity Metro Trains. The line-based focus will comprise full line trials prior to revenue service and managing the change impact of the MTP across the line and the wider business.

Enabling Services Manager

Senior Engineer – Train Control & ATS

Responsible for the efficient and effective support to the Rail Projects Victoria Programme (RPVP). This roles provides key leadership across a range of programme-level disciplines which include: financial governance, legal, commercial and financial risk management, programme planning, control systems, stakeholder and communications and people management.

As a Subject matter expert in Train Control systems, including Automatic Train Supervision (ATS), and their interface to signalling/ CBTC and other network control systems, the role is responsible to review designs relating to the proposed systems and changes to existing systems.

THE LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECT The Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) was established by the Victorian Government to oversee one of the largest rail infrastructure projects in the state’s history. LXRP is part of the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority and our projects fall under Victoria’s Big Build.

Central to the project is the elimination of 75 level crossings across metropolitan Melbourne by 2025, in addition to other rail network upgrades such as new train stations, track duplication and train stabling yards.

> KEY LXRP PROJECT ROLES: Programme Delivery Manager – LXRP

Project Manager – Signalling

Responsible and accountable for the delivery of Projects within the Level Crossings Removal Portfolio (LXRP). They shall ensure that the Program Managers, Project Managers, Engineers and the other team members involved in the LXRP Projects achieve the goals within the safety, time, cost and quality parameters determined for the Projects.

To provide effective project management of LXRP signalling requirements, drawing together MTM’s needs as a client and assisting the Department of Transport ensuring OH&S, quality, cost, time and scope parameters of the projects are adequately set out and achieved.

www.metrotrains.com.au

Melbourne: Australia’s sporting and culture capital.

erence Diff

Deliver a great passenger experience

EA

Connecting people and places for a growing Melbourne

S

OUR VISION

Ca ri n g

Z er

o Ha

R A TE GIC F OC U S R ST

RF

We work smarter every day to be Australia’s most respected city railway

Support rail transformation

OU

OUR MISSION

Empower and engage our people

OU

One Team

OUR VALUES

AR

De pe nd ab le

A ke Ma

Be a sustainable business long term

rm OUR FOUNDATION Safety – Our goal is Zero Harm, because every injury is preventable

> FURTHER CAREER OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS BOTH MTP AND LXRP: » » » » » » » » » » » »

Project Engineer – Overhead Line Project Engineer – TCMS Project Engineer – Signalling Supervisor – Signalling Technical Lead – Commissioning and Completions Senior Project Engineer - Structures Track & Civil Design Review Engineer Signalling & Overheads Design Review Engineers Maintenance Planning Specialist Senior Systems Assurance Engineer Human Factors Advisor Senior Systems Engineer / FRACAS Engineer

» » » » » »

Project Engineer – OCS / ICT Design Review Engineer - Traction Power Occupation / Possession Planners & Managers Rail Safety Coordinator / Advisor & Rail Safety Managers CBTC / PSD Experts Delivery Manager – Disruptions

> SENIOR OPPORTUNITIES WITH MTM: » »

Project Director Package Director

INTERESTED? If what you’ve read resonates with your values, experience and career aspirations then we want to hear from you.

Successful candidates and their families will be offered sponsorship and be provided with relocation assistance as part of the MTM’s Global Mobility Framework.

To register your interest, contact Kyle MacLean (Talent Partner) on kyle.maclean@metrotrains.com.au with your CV and contact details, or for more information, see:

mtm-careers.com

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

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

siemens.com/mobility