Rail Engineer - Issue 169 - November 2018

by rail engineers for rail engineers

NOVEMBER 2018 –– ISSUE ISSUE 168 169 OCTOBER 2018

derby 79 days later

RETURN OF THE RAIL PARTNERSHIP THE FUTURE OF UK RAILAWARDS New Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines gives his early thoughts on the state of the railways.

SCHEMES FLOODSTATION DERBY RESILIENCE REMODELLING

HALVES CHALLENGES CP6: A GAME OF AND TWO POLITICS

flood Two very similar fl ood prevention projects, but on different routes and with different contractors.

The UK supply chain met at the Rail Industry Association annual conference to hear from politicians and infrastructure owners.

www.railengineer.uk

ENVIRONMENT

Take a closer look at how we preserve infrastructure and natural habitats

wspforthefuture.co.uk

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

44

22 28

Environment Flood resilience schemes in southwest England Mark Phillips compares two very similar projects on different routes.

Rebuilding nature’s networks with the railway Jenny Merriman and Anne Dugdale from WSP discuss the concept of Natural Capital.

22

38

Feature

06 10 18 32 38 44 48 54 58

News Railtex, greenhouse gases, George Stephenson, brake dust.

Derby 79 days later Peter Stanton looks back at a major project as the East Midlands station reopens.

The future of UK Rail New Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines speaks to parliamentarians.

The UK rail supply chain – challenges and politics The Rail Industry Association’s annual conference raised some interesting questions.

Midland Metro update Grahame Taylor revisits construction of the West Midlands Metro extension.

Autonomous trams demonstrated in public Keith Fender rides on a driverless tram in Potsdam, Germany.

The Digital Railway progresses to the East Coast main line David Bickell considers Network Rail’s plans for train control at King’s Cross.

Advances in railway cybersecurity Paul Darlington learns how Nokia is combatting the threat of cyber attack.

Crossrails considered Clive Kessell on the highs and lows of Crossrail and the prospects for Crossrail 2.

54

62 66 74

Waterloo new platforms Mark Phillips visits the London terminus as its remodelling nears completion.

Liverpool Lime Street completion The extensive remodelling of this important station is successfully delivered.

Eu5t0n Graeme Bickerdike introduces Tony Freschini’s 1971 study of Euston station.

74 Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

3

PROUD TO HELP OUR CUSTOMERS SUCCEED Understanding your needs to deliver railway success Knowing exactly which profile is suitable for your track can sometimes be a challenge. That’s why we’ve created a handy rail profile selector to do just that.

Our rail products and grades can be precisely matched to a host of variables to ensure every rail we deliver provides the best performance throughout its service life.

For more information contact: T | +44 (0)1724 404040 E | rail@britishsteel.co.uk @BrSteelRail

BRITISHSTEEL.CO.UK/RAILSELECTOR

?

RAIL ENGINEER MAGAZINE

EDITORIAL

Under new management Andrew Haines became Network Rail’s new chief executive in August. In this month’s magazine, he gives his thoughts on where the railway needs to go, as expressed to the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group. This follows his questioning by the Commons Transport Committee in September about his key priorities.

No doubt, his views reflect his experience as managing director of South West trains, when he felt that Network Rail was too centralised and so was detached from its passengers and freight users. Hence his view that passengers “have to be at the front of the agenda for every one of our employees” and that more devolution is needed.

At the Transport Committee hearing, its chair, Lillian Greenwood, expressed the view that previously there had a lack of candour from Network Rail. This was not the case on this occasion when Haines, for example, expressed his candid view that the centralisation of timetable planning a decade ago was a short-sighted decision, resulting in a loss of skills. He also felt that the current timetable process, developed in the 1990s when passenger numbers were declining, was never designed to introduce large-scale changes.

He also expressed a more nuanced approach to electrification. Whilst Mark Carne is on record as saying: “We’ve discovered the cost of electrification is very expensive” and that “in the meantime the trains are getting better”, Haines made it clear to the committee that he is not anti-electrification.

However, he feels that the right solution depends on the required outcome. He considered that electrification does very little if the requirement is increased capacity

with no reduction in journey time. However, if better whole life costs, journey time improvements and a reduced carbon footprint are required, he advised that “you might well choose electrification”.

Haines was also quizzed about the digital signalling, which he feels had been significantly oversold. Nevertheless, with two-thirds of the signalling system requiring renewal in the next fifteen years, it is important to avoid its replacement by conventional equipment. This needs a business case based on digital signalling’s maintenance savings and capacity improvements. Acknowledging concerns about the continuing increase in signalling replacement costs, he stressed the importance of early contractor involvement to keep costs down.

Although both his Westminster appearances indicate some changes of approach, Haines has much in common with his predecessor.

These include his conviction that the focus on safety must not change and the importance of attracting private finance. He also feels that Network Rail has made huge progress in some areas, with many successful projects delivered.

As Mark Phillips describes, two such projects are the flood resilience schemes at Cowley Bridge junction and Axminster. These deliver significant benefits to passengers, who are unlikely to be aware of this work. In contrast, users of Derby and Liverpool Lime Street stations were well aware of the work at these stations. Our reports from Peter Stanton and Paul Darlington show that the planning and execution of the blockade work (or partial closure as Network Rail prefers to term it), which kept these stations open during the

major work at and around them, was seriously impressive.

The work to modify Waterloo’s former international terminal for domestic services is also quite complex. As Mark Phillips explains, this includes infill roofing, orchestra pit refurbishment and a new link bridge.

Looking back fifty years, Graeme Bickerdike considers the design of the ‘new’ Euston station which opened in 1968 and now carries more than twice the passengers that it was designed for. Looking to the future, Clive Kessell, reports on the case for Crossrail 2 in an article that also highlights the frustration and unanswered questions about the delay in opening the Elizabeth line.

In his feature, David Bickell reiterates the point Andrew Haines made about the need for digital signalling to replace life expired signalling equipment, in this case that installed in the 1970s at the southern end of the East Coast main line. With the introduction of digital signalling, cyber security becomes increasingly important. This month, we also explain how cyber-attacks can be prevented.

The digital technologies used in self-driving cars have now been applied to trams, as Keith Fender explains in his report from Potsdam, near Berlin, on what is claimed to be the world’s first self-driving tram. Closer to home, Grahame Taylor reports on progress with the West Midlands Metro extension, which is to have battery operated trams and a link to HS2. He also highlights the challenges of installing its permanent way in Birmingham’s congested city centre.

With over 300,000 employees, the rail industry’s annual contribution to the UK economy is £36 billion. Much of its supply chain is represented by the Railway Industry Association, which recently had its annual conference. As we describe, this featured high-profile speakers and highlighted concerns about the ‘boom and bust’ with project funding, lack of funding for rolling stock innovations, the need for a satisfactory Brexit and co-ordination between prestige projects such as HS2, Crossrail 2 and the digital railway. There was also a consensus that the travel experience of rail passengers needs to be improved.

In this, and other respects, Network Rail’s new CEO seems to be in tune with the voice of the industry.

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

5

6

THE TEAM

NEWS

Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.uk

Production Editor Nigel Wordsworth nigel.wordsworth@railengineer.uk

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

Engineering writers bob.wright@railengineer.uk chris.parker@railengineer.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.uk collin.carr@railengineer.uk

Exhibitors rolling in to Railtex

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

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Jolene Price jolene@rail-media.com

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

01530 816 444

Website: www.railengineer.uk

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

Editorial copy to Email:

news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email:

subscribe@rail-media.com

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

Part of: ® www.rail-media.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The world's biggest and most respected rolling stock manufacturers are confirming their stands at next year's Railtex 2019, the UK's premier rail industry exhibition.

Already confirmed is French transport giant Alstom, which used Railtex 2017 to unveil plans to introduce a new regional EMU platform for the UK, as well as launching its new CLever cantilever for the country’s rail network, which will be returning to Birmingham for 2019, when the company will exhibit new designs and innovations, to be confirmed closer to the show.

Stadler Rail, which is supplying UK operator Greater Anglia with a new fleet of Flirt electric inter-city and electro-diesel regional multiple-units, and supplying a fleet of 17 driverless metro trains for the 10,5km Glasgow Subway, will also be using Railtex 2019 as a platform for its latest product range. The company made its Railtex debut in 2017 and will make a highly anticipated return.

Also confirmed for 2019 is Chinese manufacturer CRRC, the world’s largest supplier of rail transit equipment. The company has recently developed a hybrid shunting locomotive for Deutsche Bahn and, at Railtex 2017, showcased vehicles for the Bejing Metro Line 14 and Malaysia ETS Intercity EMU, amongst others.

Other exhibitors with stand reservations include Hitachi Rail Europe, showcasing its wide range of rolling stock innovations, train maintenance, predictive maintenance, signalling and traffic management systems, and also Siemens, which promoted its 3D virtual reality solutions at Railtex 2017, including a metro configurator and an innovative

depot simulator, as well as an ETCS driver’s desk.

These manufacturers will join a host of other national and international organisations from across the infrastructure and rolling stock sectors, all coming together at an event that will help shape the future of UK rail.

Railtex 2019 takes place at Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre between May 14-16 2019. Demand is set to be high again, following 2017’s impressive showing, and companies are urged to book their stand space early to avoid disappointment.

For more information, see www.railtex.co.uk

NEWS

Greenhouse gas is 25,000 times worse than CO2

DECEMBER 2018

ELECTRIFICATION & POWER

As the electrification debate grows, along with the (some would say painfully slow) increase in electrification route miles, comes a warning that the equipment used could be adding to the global warming problem.

The components inside high-voltage switchgear need to be insulated, one from another, so that electricity can’t jump the gap. This is achieved by either having large gaps between them - air insulated switchgear - or by flooding the space between the components with an insulating gas.

One of the gases used is sulphur hexafluoride - SF6.

Hopefully, this gas stays inside the equipment and isn’t released to the atmosphere, but if, for example, there is an accident, or life-expired equipment is being scrapped and care is not taken, then

coming soon...

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

there is always a chance that a little may escape.

The railway industry is always portrayed as being keen to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, just one kilogramme of SF6 has the equivalent greenhouse effect of over 25 tonnes of CO2 - and this synthetic gas persists in the environment for up to 3,200 years. For this reason, the design and development of substations that replace SF6 is a goal in Network Rail’s challenge statement on smarter, more efficient electrification.

NOJA Power, which supplies equipment to the Australian railways, is supporting this goal through its advances in solid dielectric insulation (which do not use gas of any type) that offer equivalent performance to SF6 across the medium voltage range (1kV to 52kV).

“NOJA Power has always applied a policy not to use SF6 in any of our products,” said NOJA Power Group managing director Neil O’Sullivan, who has the ambition to make SF6 go the way of CFCs in the 1990s.

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

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE This issue looks back at the 2018 Christmas works and previews infrastructure projects happening in 2019. Rail Engineer’s expert writers look at what’s involved in maintaining and renewing the railway’s infrastructure and at advances in technology aimed at making it faster, easier and more cost effective.

Asset Management, Bridges, Cable Hangers, Concrete, Construction, Drainage, Examinations, Lifting, Modular Systems, Painting, Plant & Equipment, Precast Sections, Refurbishment, Replacement, Rope Access, Scaffolding, Spray Concrete, Surveying Equipment, Surveying Techniques, Tunnelling, Tunnel Boring, Ventilation, Waterproofing.

MARCH 2019 DIGITAL RAILWAY,

Enchanted

SIGNALLING & TELECOMS Three of Rail Engineer’s writers specialise in this complex field that keeps the railway running and will provide the key to increased capacity, improved punctuality, quicker journey times and safer running in the future. Reports on the Digital Railway are balanced with others on more traditional forms of control and communications.

Barriers, Broadband, CCTV, Displays, Driverless Systems, Equipment, ERTMS, GSM-R, Gantries, Hazard Warnings, IP Networks, Information Systems, Level Crossing Surfaces, Loudspeakers, Operating Systems, Protection Systems, Radio, Resignalling Schemes, Signalling Power, Software, Training, Warning Systems, WiFi

RailStaff Awards 2018

WH ER E P EOP L E' S D R E A M S BE C O M E R E A LI T Y. . .

B O OK YO UR T I C KETS TO D AY J U ST V I S I T WWW.R A I LST A FFA W A R DS .C O M THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2018 | THE NEC BIRMINGHAM TheRailStaffAwards

rail-media

@railstaffawards Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

7

8

NEWS

George Stephenson notebook turns up in York A records assistant at Network Rail's archive in York has stumbled across a notebook containing George Stephenson's plans for the world's first locomotive-driven passenger railway.

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

• Handrails • Pedestrian & safety barriers • Roof Edge Protection

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

Visit us online today at eziklampsystems.com Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

John Page discovered the notebook by chance while looking for another document in the archive’s deeds room in April this year. It includes Stephenson’s redesign and budget for the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which opened in 1825, and was signed

by G Stephenson at Killingworth Colliery on 18 January 1822.

The notebook, which shows Stephenson’s survey of George Overton’s original plans for the line and recommendations, has now gone on display at the National Railway Museum in York.

John Page said: “Because it is a historical document it would never have been loaned out or requested as it didn’t impact the running of the railway, so, since the 1950s, it has sat on a shelf unnoticed amongst hundreds of other packets.

“I was looking for a deed for one of our internal colleagues and, purely out of curiosity, decided to look through the packets, and there it was, and

what a thrill it was to find.”

Sir Peter Hendy CBE, chair of Network Rail, added: “George Stephenson’s original survey of the Stockton and Darlington Railway ushered in the railway age, not only in Britain, but around the world. Network Rail is delighted and proud to have found this astonishing artefact, and very pleased to have it displayed by our friends at the National Railway Museum.”

NEWS

SNCF trial to tackle brake dust emissions Technology designed to suck up the particles emitted by trains during braking is to be trialled by SNCF. Working with Tallano Technologie, SNCF will fit the TAMIC® system to trains in the Ile-de-France region as part of an experiment which aims to improve air quality at stations.

SNCF believes the trial, which is financed by the regional government and will run for two and a half years, is the first of its kind in the world.

A small turbine, installed next to the brake disc, activates during braking and sucks particles from grooves within the brake pad.

According to SNCF, the particles produced during braking are a significant pollutant in underground stations. Although less than seven per cent of the 391 stations operated by SNCF Transilien in the Ile-de-France region are located underground, SNCF said it felt it was still important to find a solution.

As well as its applications in rail, Tallano Technologie has developed a similar solution for the automotive sector.

www.jobson-james.co.uk/rail

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

SPECIALIST RAIL DEVEGETATION CONTRACTOR - £2M TURNOVER

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

• The company had an excellent health and safety record however we felt this was not recognised by the current insurers.

• A 15 page detailed report was compiled explaining the companies safety investment and accreditations achieved.

• The result was improved cover with 32% premium saving.

£12,351 SAVING

ON INSURANCE PREMIUM

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

RISK REPORT TO

INSURERS

£2M

TURNOVER

32%

SAVING

HAPPY TO RECOMMEND

Offices in London and Birmingham. Nationwide coverage.

Jobson James Insurance Brokers Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

9

10

FEATURE

derby

79 days later

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

FEATURE SHEFFIELD

PETER STANTON

CHESTERFIELD

CHESTERFIELD WORKSTATION (EMCC)

CK

IL )

M AT LO

RA K (P EA

AMBERGATE JNC

Ambitious project DUFFIELD

JN C N

EA TO

N

RD

LO

N G

N D

O

N O N D

O SP

LO

DERBY

NOTTINGHAM

LITTLE EATON JUNCTION

EMCC PSB PEARTREE

TRENT WORKST’N (EMCC)

SUNNY HILL LOOPS

STOKE/ CREWE

LEICESTER/ ST PANCRAS

EGGINGTON JUNCTION SB

MOIRA WEST JUNCTION SB

BURTON-ON-TRENT COALVILLE EMCC EAST MIDLANDS

CONTROL CENTRE

ALREWAS SB

PSB

POWER SIGNAL BOX

SB

SIGNAL BOX

W N C O M RT L H

DERBY PSB CONTROL AREA DERBY STATION REMODELLING AREA FRINGE CONTROL AREA TO DERBY PSB

LICHFIELD

TAMWORTH

WEST MIDS SIGNALLING CENTRE

W SO C U ML TH

M

A

H

G

IN

RM

The high-level project objectives were: »» To reduce journey times, improve performance, increase the line speed and segregate services; »» To remodel the station for a simplified and compliant track and signalling layout; »» To renew life-expiring signalling and track infrastructure in the area (including Spondon level crossing); »» To deliver a layout ready for future electrification.

In summary, achieving those objectives involved a £200 million investment to reconfigure both track and signalling in the Derby station and surrounding area, delivering a more efficient and reliable layout.

Crucial to the planning was the timing of main work: the partial closure would run from 22 of July to 7 of October and could be split into two distinct phases.

Phase one, from 22 July to 2 September, was of six weeks’ duration. This was followed by phase two, 2 September to 7 October, was five weeks. In the whole period, there was to be only one day with no trains, on 2 September, to facilitate essential testing and commissioning activities.

An overview of the work content is impressive, with a baseline of laying fifteen kilometres of new track, which was to be replaced and laid in a completely new configuration. As an adjunct to the core physical works were the tasks of installing, testing and commissioning a considerable signalling upgrade, related closely to the upgrading of Spondon level crossing, south of the station area on the London main line. This would result in reduced barrier downtime at the crossing, bringing benefits to all.

As well as the operating railway, there were to be improvements to nearly all the existing platforms, including the provision of a completely new island platform in the location of the old goods lines. Platforms improvements would include new canopies on the renumbered Platforms 4

BI

With the major work complete, and the station reopened, it is time to reflect on what has taken place and the significance of a scheme that has completely changed the operational methodology at the station junctions and has also spread its impact some distance from the station itself.

To start, it is worth reviewing the outline of the scheme to allow the second phase of the works to be understood in context.

The station was previously remodelled in the late 1960s as part of a major East Midlands-related Derby remodelling, when the now to be superseded power box was brought into service. Equipment in that power signal box was approaching its end of effective life and the control would become the last portion of East Midlands signalling to migrate onto the adjacent East Midlands Rail Operating Centre (EMROC).

Similarly, the permanent way and switch and crossing units had also reached their end-of-life condition. Regular maintenance had kept the station performing well since the 1960s but, with passenger numbers doubling in the past twenty years, the Derby resignalling project represented a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to replace and upgrade the infrastructure.

2018, therefore, was an opportune time to redevelop the station and associated layouts driven by that requirement to replace existing signalling equipment. The main station buildings and concourse were replaced in the 1980s, and was further modernised in 2013, resulting in very little heritage to concern designers who could have a free reign to produce the most modern facilities.

CLAY CROSS JUNCTION -IN D

BY IEL RK F KI SH A

D

erby station has just undergone a major remodelling, one that the project’s sponsor has described as “perhaps THE biggest remodelling scheme of its type in recent years”. Rail Engineer published a preview of the works planned for Derby (issue 155, September 2017) and also reported on progress partway through (issue 165, July 2018).

BIRMINGHAM

and 5, the old bay Platform 5 having been dispensed with, while the new platform would be connected to the existing station footbridge by lifts and stairs.

Close cooperation The 79-day partial closure, the longest ever continuous partial closure of an operational railway, featured a great many individual milestones, but the programme was essentially divided into four key stages: »» Days 1-9: possession of the Birmingham line was taken while the North-South line remained fully operational; »» Days 9-44: work was extended to include the south lines towards Trent; »» Days 44-79: Day 44 was a major

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

11

12

FEATURE programme milestone, with the station becoming a temporary terminus from the South and West (with no trains to the North) - remodelling and signalling re-control led to the closure of the old Derby power box; »» Day 79: The signalling system, all lines and platforms became fully operational.

Despite the long temporary closure, the sheer number of workers, engineering trains (240 were used during the 79-day period, bringing in materials, including 150,000 tonnes of ballast, and removing waste), road/rail vehicles and the amount of equipment on site, meant that each contractor’s work programme involved a great deal of preparation and a huge amount of collaboration, with detailed planning taking place months in advance.

The project was managed under a ‘hub and spoke’ arrangement, with Galliford Try undertaking the station work, Amey Sersa looking after the track while Siemens was responsible for all signalling and telecoms, including the control centre, signalling power and civils works associated with it.

A number of major subcontractors took care of significant elements of the project - operational telecommunications were progressed by Optima, building services

by Kemada, steelwork by Carver and structural work by MPB. Close collaboration throughout the programme was a key element of its success, with the spoke contractors working closely with each other, their supply chains and Network Rail Operations to ensure the smooth running of the work.

The co-location of Network Rail and its contractors was also a critical success factor, enabling daily meetings to be held throughout the partial closure (this increased to twice-daily during the project’s critical periods). Co-location also meant that issues were quickly and

New pointwork in place, simplifying the southern approach to Derby station. efficiently resolved by the project team as they arose, without them having to be escalated within individual organisations.

This close cooperation meant that a good deal of parallel working was possible, while the integrity of engineering safety processes was maintained at all times.

Improved track layout Among the major plus points of the scheme was the delivery of an efficient track layout, enabling services to be segregated and journey times reduced, facilitated by modern electronic signalling with remote condition monitoring of the vital operating equipment.

Through the platforms, the station has gained an increased line speed, rising from fifteen miles per hour through the old layout to thirty and forty miles an hour in the new format. Although most trains stop at Derby, there is a real gain for freight passing through, and modern high-performance trains are also able to accelerate and take advantage of the higher speed condition.

The way that the platforms are used has completely changed.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The original layout of the lines round the station was developed for the patterns of freight traffic in the late 1960s. The high concentration of freight traffic at the time, of course, was coal flows, an example being the regular shuttling of coal train working from Ripley through Derby, to Willington power station on the Birmingham line. This coal traffic, together with other freight flows such as steel billets, passed through the station with capacity assisted by the multiple goods lines to the east of the station.

With the heavy focus on freight heading towards Birmingham, rather than London, the layout tended to favour the West Midlands’ routeing. Similarly, with northbound flows, the bias tended towards this cross-country route.

The net result was that London line trains, coming north, were held as they had to effectively cross the northeast southwest route to gain platform space, creating a high percentage of delays while waiting for platform access.

A vital philosophy of the new layout is the ability to segregate train flows; London services use the east-side Platforms 5 and 6 while northeast southwest services concentrate on the west-side Platforms 1 and 2.

Other services, such as those serving Nottingham and Cardiff, will use the centre roads of Platforms 3 and 4, whilst freight, at its current pattern, will be able to use the roads through Platforms 1 and 2, taking advantage of the higher line speeds.

The redundant goods lines have disappeared, to make way for the new island platform incorporating the new Platform 6. The eastern face of the new island, in theory Platform 7, flanks the

FEATURE approach lines to Etches Park depot and will not normally be available for passenger service use.

That remodelling has resulted in traffic flows being effectively shifted from the south end of the station to the north. The necessary major trackwork alterations, therefore, drove the project staging, as the south end was renewed and remodelled in the first part, blocking direct access to the cross country and Crewe routes.

Cross-country traffic was able to use the Erewash Valley route and the line from Trent Junction to Sinfin, to allow northeast southwest services to continue.

The second phase involve the renewal, and substitution by new junctions, of the permanent way north of the station. This again cut the route but allowed northeast - southwest services to come into the station from the south before reversing and heading off to the West Midlands.

A casualty of this part of the staging was the suspension of the Matlock branch service. However, this was served in the

SUNNY HILL LOOPS

Probably the first time there has been no track down here for over a hundred years. interim by a bus substitution between Derby and Matlock, serving all stations on the route. Indeed, much of the access to train services for Derby passengers was maintained by a complex system of bus substitution which, while perhaps not ideal, enabled access to the rail network from the city to be maintained.

Many of the existing switch and crossing units replaced were a reliability threat to the station working. The new pointwork used standard items throughout, avoiding known reliability challenges such as switched diamonds. During the last weeks of the programme, track renewal

continued north of the station towards Little Eaton and the Chaddesden curve.

Chaddesden curve had originally been part of the route that allowed trains to pass Derby station and access the main goods yard at Chaddesen sidings. The north end approach to the yard had been retained, allowing access from the station to some residual engineer’s sidings and acting as a headshunt for stock coming into service from Etches Park maintenance depot. The curve has now been double tracked and a portion of the sidings signalled, to give increased flexibility of working and some extra stabling room.

2017 LAYOUT

DERBY PEARTREE

LNW JNC

1

WEST 2

5

NORTH

3

4 6

DERBY JNC

BOMBARDIER ROLLS ROYCE

SPONDON

MCB CCTV

LONDON ROAD JNC

RTC

SOUTH

UP & DOWN MAIN WEST CHADDESDEN

UP & DOWN GOODS MANUALLY-CONTROLLED MCB BARRIER WITH CCTV CCTV

SUNNY HILL LOOPS

NEW LAYOUT FROM OCT 2018

DERBY PEARTREE 1

UTF

WEST

DTF UTS

2

3

4

5

NORTH

DTS BOMBARDIER ROLLS ROYCE

6

SPONDON

SOUTH

NEW TRACK

MCB OD RTC ETCHES PARK

CHADDESDEN

UP TAMWORTH FAST

UTF

DOWN TAMWORTH FAST

DTF

UP TAMWORTH SLOW

UTS

DOWN TAMWORTH SLOW

DTS

MANUALLY-CONTROLLED MCB BARRIER WITH OD OBSTACLE DETECTION

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

13

14

FEATURE Signalling recontrol In preparation for the main partial closure, the first major tranche of track enabling work took place during a two-day disruptive possession over Christmas 2016, with Siemens installing a five- and four-track under track crossing (UTX), in readiness for the signalling and telecoms and power cables being laid.

A three-day disruptive possession over Christmas 2017 enabled the signalling project team to undertake two key phases of work. The first supported track alterations, with the up and down goods line and an existing signal gantry within the station area being removed, and the signalling infrastructure to accommodate the new fuel and inspection line laid in.

Temporary points were also laid in to facilitate access to and from the rolling stock transportation works in Derby. The second tranche of work saw the installation of a new six-track signal gantry (consisting of three legs and two booms) at the south end of the station.

During January 2018, the new telecoms and power systems were made available, with soak testing starting six months later.

The main programme, covering 283 signalling equivalent units, was not only technically complex, given the significant changes to the track layout and the changes in data that were therefore required, but also logistically extremely complex.

In all, the scope of the signalling work included the installation and commissioning of the following elements:

Looking south, with the London Road bridge in the background. »» Controlguide Westcad workstation at the EMROC in Derby; »» Three Central Interlocking Processors (CIPs) to enable the resignalling of the wider Derby station area and the recontrol of Derby North; »» A Relay Interface TDM Application (RITA) to enable the recontrol of the Derby North area; »» 35 kilometres of re-signalled railway, with a further 30 kilometres of recontrol area; »» Auto-reconfigurable power supply, 124 signals and 89 point ends; »» Westrace Trackside System (WTS) ‘zone controllers’ and Frauscher axle counters; »» 11 relocatable equipment buildings (REBs) and 26 signalling location cases;

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

»» One modular equipment housing for the re-built level crossing at Spondon, which is now a manually-controlled barrier with object detection crossing.

The remote interlockings at Duffield and Ambergate, to the north of Derby, were re-controlled to the Derby workstation at EMROC during days 44-79 of the partial closure, with the existing TDM (Time Division Multiplex) systems being replaced by the Siemens RITA solution, which has allowed automatic route setting capability to be added to the existing interlockings - negating the need to completely replace the existing equipment and resignal the area.

Part of Siemens control systems portfolio, TDM brings train-operated route release (TORR) and anti-bobbing functionality to the interlocking. Both of these are required to allow the implementation of automatic route setting and both are functions not found on older interlockings.

The programme was also the first application in the East Midlands of Siemens’ WTS (Westrace Trackside System) technology. Already deployed on projects including Thameslink, Liverpool Lime Street and Weaver to Wavertree, WTS is a high-performance, high-availability trackside controller that is rapidly becoming the norm on resignalling programmes.

As an internet protocol (IP) networkbased solution, the system can replace traditional trackside functional modules (TFMs), relays, and other legacy equipment. Being a digital-ready solution, it also provides sufficient excess capacity in the signal operating modules (SOMs) to ensure Derby is effectively ‘futureproofed’ for the next 30 years.

Derby station

Merseyrail underground stations

Galliford Try were proud to have part of the successful completion of Derby remodelling project.

We offer multi-disciplinary design, construction,

Carlisle station roof

refurbishment and commissioning skills for the rail sector. Our complementary civils, highways, land remediation, environmental, demolition and building businesses coupled with our capability to deliver complex infrastructure and building schemes allows us to offer our clients a complete delivery model.

Newton-le-Willows station

gallifordtry.co.uk

16

FEATURE Visible improvements Visitors to the station will notice the improved passenger facilities that have been gained with the remodelling and revised philosophy on the segregation of services.

Galliford Try were responsible for the island platform 6/7 construction and the extensions to the existing platforms. The new island platform gives much improved facilities for passengers joining London services with a new first-class lounge, waiting room, refreshment room and staff facilities. Access to the station footbridge has been facilitated by more effective stairways and, as the station subway does not serve that platform, two, rather than one, new disabled access lifts have been installed. The general design of the new platform and accoutrements matches the appearance of earlier work on the other platforms, carried out in 2013, to give an architecturally cohesive appearance.

Looking back over the project, sponsor Kevin Newman explained that, in his view, the success of the project rested on good planning, an excellent team and a pragmatic view of contingency. There were three major contractors on site (as well as others) and the coordination between them had made a significant contribution to progress, regular interface meetings having facilitated that cooperation and ensured that the project management team were aware of any challenges that might occur.

This complex task was also put into motion during some of the hottest weather seen for ages - an important welfare issue was to ensure staff on-site were suitably hydrated. The dry weather also made the spreading of ballast a dusty process, needing its own mitigation.

As well as the climate-related challenges, it had been important to remember that the project had taken place right in the centre of a large city, and Kevin was pleasing to note that effective stakeholder and neighbour consultation had apparently resulted in

very little disruption to the residents from the project construction efforts.

The major train operating companies working through the station had also encouraged progress, doubtless taking note of the improved conditions for their operation after the project was complete.

CrossCountry had built diversions into its schedule whilst the East Midlands Trains’ timetable had been set to allow access but retain a reasonable service to the capital.

Further cooperation from East Midlands Trains had also allowed access to the station worksite by accepting and enabling alternative maintenance sites for its trains, while planning moves on and off the Etches Park depot at Derby, to allow station works to progress.

Whilst the station project was underway, East Midlands Trains was also carrying out modification works to that depot to take care of maintenance plans for its expanded High-Speed Train fleet.

Further acceptance of perturbation and careful planning had also allowed the movement of trains in and out of the Bombardier works and the tripping of aviation fuel for Rolls Royce.

Reworking the roof over Platforms 4 and 5, as seen from the new Platform 6.

Open for business As 8 of October dawned, the city of Derby could once again enjoy a full rail service, boosted by a much more flexible and effective layout and operations control, taking full advantage of that quoted ‘once in a generation’ opportunity. In the early hours of that morning, the final pieces of equipment and machinery were removed and the lines to the north of Derby station were handed back to East Midlands Trains and CrossCountry to allow the full train service to resume for the first time since Sunday, 22 July.

To thank customers for their patience and understanding over the previous 79 days, thousands of free reusable coffee cups (including a voucher for a free coffee), cupcakes and other treats and surprises were being handed out throughout the week. Although the project finished on time, there was some disruption to services due to issues elsewhere on the railway.

However, this does not overshadow the incredible project achievement.

Summing up, Rail Minister Jo Johnson said: “This is a key milestone in the Government’s rail upgrade programme and is part of the £1.5 billion modernisation of the Midland main line.

“Passengers have been incredibly patient during the summer while the huge engineering work has taken place and they will now start to take advantage of the improvements which will deliver more reliable, faster services, with more seats.”

Thanks to Barry Pearson for his input on the Siemens work on this project, and to the Network Rail media and engineering teams, and to East Midlands Trains, for their help with this article.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

RAILWAY DIVISION ANNUAL LUNCHEON 1 MARCH 2019

Grosvenor House Park Lane, London imeche.org/railwayluncheon

Hosted by: ANDY MELLORS Chair, Railway Division Keynote speaker: ANDREW HAINES OBE Chief Executive, Network Rail

Sponsored by

Improving the world through engineering

18

FEATURE

ANDREW HAINES

A

ndrew Haines recently joined Network Rail as its new chief executive, replacing Mark Carne who had held the post since January 2014.

In his last role, Andrew had been a board member and chief executive of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) since August. Prior to this, he had a wideranging career in the rail industry, both as managing director of South West Trains, and then as managing director of the Rail Division for First Group plc.

Andrew received the OBE in 2016, for services to transport.

For his first external speaking engagement, Andrew Haines spoke on the future of UK rail - structures, timetabling, renewals, enhancements, cost control - to the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group at Westminster.

Having interviewed Mark Carne on his departure from Network Rail’s top job (issue 168, October 2018), Rail Engineer went along to meet the new ‘boss’ and hear what he had to say.

On a very warm early-October evening in Committee Room 18, Andrew looked relaxed. With shirtsleeves rolled up, he was both casual and focussed. He clearly knew several of the parliamentarians around the table from his former role at the CAA. Speaking from notes, he appeared well informed and covered topics that others might have shied away from. He did, on occasion, seem to be choosing his words with care, but that was unsurprising considering his newness in the role and the audience in front of him.

So here are Andrew Haines’ views on the railway today, and where it needs to go.

It’s great to be back - it’s a really bizarre sensation to be back in the rail industry.

I was at the CAA for nine years, so it’s almost 10 years to the day since I left the railway, and I’m one of those guys who doesn’t spend the whole time looking back, so I’d moved on.

However, when this opportunity came up I thought long and hard about it. I’m very passionate about what the railway can do for the economic prosperity of this

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

UK rail The future of

FEATURE country - what it can do for people’s lives and so it was an opportunity that was too good to be missed.

Having been away for ten years, a lot has changed. But there’s a lot that hasn’t changed as well, and I thought that it would be useful to consider some of the things I observe as being quite different now, and then also look at some of the residual issues that remain unresolved, some of the old chestnuts if you like, which I think the events of the last year or so really compel us to tackle head-on.

What’s changed?

The first thing is, let’s not forget the sheer scale of growth, particularly in the passenger railway.

Every year, passengers make 100 million extra journeys compared with 10 years ago. Something like 430 million people made journeys between April and June this year - in the same period 10 years ago that would have been around 300 million.

That is a very significant scale of change.

Now safety. The record on safety is one we ought to be proud of. We are now pretty clearly the safest large railway in Europe. That has come, not through fluke, not through providence, but through some basic disciplines which are now fundamentally different to what they were when I joined the railway some 30 years ago.

Actually, they are also different from what they might have been just 10 years ago, not just in terms of workforce safety but also passenger and public safety.

Investment - it’s been pretty staggering, actually, whatever the colour of your political cloth. It’s hard to deny that something like £74 billion has been invested in the UK rail network in the last 10 years, over the course of CP4 and CP5.

We’re still spending around about £130 million every week on renewal and upgrade projects. Alongside the big schemes, Reading, King’s Cross, London Bridge, Birmingham New Street, the Thameslink Programme and Borders Railway, one of the big surprises for me has been the amount of resignalling that’s been done, the rationalisation of signalling to regional operating centres (ROCs). A surprise, because it’s gone largely unnoticed.

For all the big schemes people hear about having gone wrong or been delayed, there are many, many more that have actually been delivered very smoothly and very seamlessly and, I think, in a transformative way - something

Andrew Haines, in the blue helmet, gets a safety briefing during a visit to Wembley North junction. we’ve not historically been able to accommodate. Now there are downsides to that, we can talk forever about the costs and the value for money, but we should at least recognise the scale of the change that’s taking place around us.

Not least, because I think that leads us to some thoughts on the future.

Franchising and the DfT I want to make a positive pitch for some of the benefits of franchising. I’m not here as an advocate of franchising or to defend it, but if we are going to have a real debate about today’s railway we should recognise that the passenger railway has grown very significantly but has also driven very significant value to taxpayers.

Bluntly, franchises are now delivering a lot more, for a lot lower burden on the taxpayer, compared with the costs of the system 10 years ago.

In addition, we’re in the midst of one of the biggest rolling stock changes in my lifetime, and at prices that look like extremely good value. If you look at the cost of bringing a new piece of rolling stock on to the railway today, it’s actually considerably cheaper than it would have been for a generation.

My last observation about what has changed is the level of DfT (Department for Transport) involvement. I think I can say this without too much consternation from our Secretary of State, because I think he himself has recognised this.

Sometimes people talk to me about the foolishness of this policy, but I don’t think it’s a policy at all. I think a lot of it has happened by chance.

It was a policy decision to abolish the Strategic Rail Authority. But I don’t think the change in franchising that took place following the West Coast franchising issue was a policy intention - I think it was something we slipped into. And, frankly, the reclassification of Network Rail was actually a consequence of the work of the Office of National Statistics, not something I suspect the Treasury welcomed with open arms.

But the net effect of those three different characteristics has meant that we now have ministers taking decisions at a very, very granular level, and I know they wouldn’t disagree with that. We have a level of proximity that I don’t think is helpful in terms of good governance, good decision making or indeed good politics.

Lack of progress So, I think we’ve made huge progress in some areas in the last 10 years, but I want to move on now to some of the areas that I think we haven’t really tackled and indeed some areas where I think we’ve gone backwards.

The timetable difficulties of the summer, and the Stephen Glaister review for the ORR (Office of Rail and Road), have shown that, despite huge ambition and commitment, the railway has not been sufficiently focused on the needs of rail users, both passengers and freight.

When the railway was being broken up and privatised, I was a very junior middle manager. I was sad enough to do my MBA thesis on “Incentivisation in the privatised railway”. This summer, I took some time to read it for the first time in 24 years.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

19

20

FEATURE Back then, I was enthusiastic about the benefits that competition for franchising could bring, the ability of clear incentives to drive efficiency and performance improvement and the power of breaking away from annual spending cuts that had been the almost relentless reality of BR for a generation. The big question I flagged was, what would happen if, against all the odds as it seemed then, the railway was to grow again, how would we deal with the investment that would be necessary?

I don’t mention that now because I’m some sort of ‘smart Alec’ that identified these issues all those years ago, but because my most fundamental observation of what hasn’t changed in my time away is that, as an industry, we have not adapted our model to cope with the level of change that is necessitated by the phenomenal growth that we have seen.

We have timetable procedures that were designed before privatisation to facilitate a model of operation that has never seriously materialised.

We have incentive regimes that are, in essence, operating exactly as negotiated in 1994, without any real review to see whether or not they drive and reward the right behaviours. We have not collaborated to build the industry mechanisms to ensure that system change can be dealt with effectively and efficiently.

We have not regulated the pace of change to reflect our collective capacity to deliver, nor have we regulated our capacity to reflect the necessary pace of

change. We have to do one or the other, but, in doing neither of those things, we have ended up with a disconnect.

We have underestimated the impact of imposing change on a congested, leaner operation and, in doing so, we have devalued the fundamental task of running the railway for passengers and freight users whilst rebuilding it for tomorrow’s users.

And, if I could be very blunt, I think we have come perilously close to creating an industry of victims where it is too easy to obsess about the speck in our neighbour’s eye. And for neighbour read TOC, or Network Rail, or DfT, or ORR or ROSCO, than deal with the log in our own eyes. All the time you have a log in your eye, then it’s rather hard to focus your sight on the end customer.

So those are some of the key reasons why I believe that train service performance has declined for the last seven years consecutively, why we have had electrification schemes whose costs and delivery targets have been missed, why some of our costs and behaviours have made innovation prohibitive, and why we appear to sleepwalk into impending problems.

Some brilliant work Now they are all really sweeping generalisations and, day after day, operators and Network Rail buck this trend. There are parts of this country delivering best in class, best ever performance in that context. Routes have

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

been generating exceptional growth in customer satisfaction and organisations have been working collaboratively to build a better railway.

I’ve seen genuinely brilliant work in the last eight weeks, by route and project within Network Rail, and by operators. If ever you feel depressed about the state of Britain’s railways, then I’d encourage you to join me for a day out to meet some of the fantastic people committed to doing their very best, day in day out. I had honestly forgotten how inspirational they are. There is a huge, tremendous loyalty and passion to do the right thing in the railway still. They compel us, as industry leaders, to configure our system better.

I am really excited to be re-joining this industry at this juncture, because it is a time of real opportunity. There is consensus that we must change, even if there is not yet consensus on what that change should look like. And I don’t believe that many, if any, of the problems we face are impossible to solve. Sir Peter Hendy, Network Rail‘s chair, I and our board are committed to participating fully and transparently in the rail review which Keith Williams will lead.

One of the benefits of reclassification is that Network Rail has no agenda, other than doing what is best for rail users and taxpayers.

It was interesting to hear Andrew Haines set out his stall on this way. Rail Engineer wishes him good fortune in carrying these ideas through the five years of CP6.

“Excellence in Engineering”

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

22

ENVIRONMENT

Flood RESILIENCE SCHEMES IN SOUTHWEST ENGLAND

Cowley Bridge junction team.

MARK PHILLIPS

River Exe project

O

ver recent years, the increasing frequency of flood events causing disruption and closure of the railway in the southwest of England should have caused even hardened climate-change deniers to begin to question their beliefs.

Investment in several projects designed to reduce the frequency and/or severity of such railway disruption is now being rolled out. Two of these, and ones that have recently been successfully completed, are on the Great Western main line near to Exeter and on the South Western main line near to Axminster. There are similarities between the two schemes that lend themselves to a combined report.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Both projects share similar features, though they have been devised independently from each other. In each case, relief from flooding damage has been provided by the removal of sections of embankment and the installation of precast reinforcedconcrete box culvert units. The two rivers with regular flood events are the Exe and the Axe, both names derived from the ancient Brithonnic word “iska”, meaning abounding in fish.

The scheme to protect the railway from the effects of the River Exe is at Cowley Bridge junction, and is one of ten sites forming Great Western’s resilience plan, a significant suite of investments projected over the next few years. The site at Cowley Bridge is the first of these to be commissioned, another site at Chipping Sodbury, on the South Wales main line, being the next.

As the Great Western main line approaches Exeter from the London direction it runs across the flood plain of the River Exe for just over a mile. The branch line from Barnstaple also crosses the flood plain to join the main line at Cowley Bridge junction.

The positioning of this junction and the associated railway embankments were perhaps not seen as critical at the time of their construction, but they have created a literal bottleneck. When the river overtopped its banks and made full use of the flood plain, the floodwaters had nowhere to go

ENVIRONMENT at the junction, except straight through and over the railway.

This has caused closure of the line on several occasions in recent years as a result of the washing away of the ballast and damage to signalling cables.

Sometimes these closures have lasted for several days whilst the infrastructure was restored, with London trains being diverted via the Yeovil single line or replaced by buses to pick up a train again at Tiverton or Taunton. This was clearly an unacceptable situation.

At this particular location, there have been severe flood events, which could not be mitigated, no less than 22 times in the past 10 years.

One particularly bad event in autumn 2012 prompted a study of better remedial options.

This work commenced in 2013 and has become known as the “Resilience Study�, also encompassing proposals for another nine sites on Great Western.

New culverts at Cowley Bridge junction.

A special case In the sphere of railway flood events, Cowley Bridge junction is a special case due to its geographical location and the topography surrounding it.

When the floodwaters reach this location, they have built up considerable speed and cause ballast mobilisation, which leads to extensive infrastructure damage and large-scale wash out. In the past, after the floodwaters had subsided, an inspection would take place with the line remaining closed until it had been extensively repaired, requiring the use of heavy machinery, engineering

trains and many tonnes of new ballast. Sometimes, repairs to signalling cables were also necessary.

Prior to the construction of the railway, the River Exe flowed directly to the site of the junction. It now takes a meandering course over the flood plain, with the railway crossing it on two major bridges. In times of flood, the excess floodwater heads straight down the abandoned river course and encounters the railway embankment. In 2000, after a flood event closed the railway, a new culvert of large concrete pipes was installed to

Delivering Excellence in Railway Engineering

Providing multi-disciplinary engineering solutions across the UK rail network Safety | Professionalism | Innovation | Respect | Integrity | Teamwork www.amcogiffen.co.uk | 01226 243413 | info@amcogiffen.co.uk

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

23

24

ENVIRONMENT Gabion mattresses and Salix mats at Cowley Bridge junction.

cater for this flow. A decade later, this capacity was found to be inadequate and further cross-sectional opening was provided.

However, it was apparent from even more recent events, and from the Resilience Study, that a more radical solution was required. The study recommended selective lowering of the flood plain on its approach to the embankment, removal of the concrete pipework and the replacement of a significant extent of the embankment with twin concrete box culvert sections. The objective of the proposal was to provide sufficient flow capacity to prevent any erosion of the embankment or ballast and to equalise the water pressure on both sides of the embankment.

Design development

Aerial view of embankment excavated at Cowley Bridge junction.

To confirm the design and dimensions of the box culvert sections, hydraulic modelling was carried out. This was also to ensure that scour patterns would not be altered. A topographical survey of the flood plain was made on a five-metre grid with the use of LiDAR data. This then enabled design of the profiles of the flood plain lowering in the approach to the embankment.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The main works were designed by AmcoGiffen, utilising Ove Arup as design consultant. Twin culverts, sitting side by side, cross beneath the railway at a skew angle to suit the natural flow of the watercourse. Each culvert consists of 12 box units, each unit being 4.8 metres wide, 2.1 meters high and 1.5 meters in depth. The run of 12 units are tensioned together longitudinally with Macalloy bars. The flow capacity of the new culvert units is 4,000 litres per second.

To provide further dissipation of the energy within the floodwaters and a robust channel out to the river, Salix pre-filled rock mattresses were specified as these are quicker to install and are an environmentally friendly alternative to gabions, concrete and blockstone. Salix also supplied Vmax P550 turf-

reinforcement mats to be used on the slopes for erosion control.

Tony Gee and Partners was responsible for the design of all temporary works, including a bridge to carry signalling cables during the works to excavate the embankment and install the culverts.

New flood-relief The precast reinforcedconcrete box sections were manufactured in Ireland by Shay Murtagh before being shipped to Wales and then transferred to the site by road. The main contractor for the works was AmcoGiffen. Access to the site required construction of a substantial access road from the adjacent public road and across the flood plain.

Ground stabilisation trials were undertaken ahead of the possession, as soon as access could be obtained to the

ENVIRONMENT

24 box culvert units ready for placement at Cowley Bridge junction. adjacent field. Soft alluviums were present in the ground, so two trials were undertaken to decide on the most suitable foundations for the culvert units.

One trial was of a shallow excavation, whilst the other was deeper, removing the soft material. Fill, including large boulders measuring a minimum of 500mm, was pushed into the ground and surrounded with smaller, gabion stone. Backfill was then installed on top of this, which was compacted and rolled in layers. Both trials passed the California Bearing Ratio tests and a suitable combination of the two trial methods was recommended by the designer, Arup, for use underneath the new culvert units.

Each individual box culvert unit weighs 13.8 tonnes. The culverts were designed to be composed of the 12 small units, so that they could be handled by a large 80-tonne excavator.

This avoided the use of any craneage, minimising weatherrelated risks, and also ensured a safer worksite with its restricted working space.

The main possession for the installation work was of 75 hours duration, from early on a Tuesday to early on the Friday morning in mid-June.

This unusually timed possession

was selected in agreement with the train operating companies so as to not disrupt Monday morning and Friday evening Cross Country passengers, who make particularly long journeys.

London-bound services were diverted.

At the same time, the local delivery unit took the opportunity of this generous line closure to undertake some track renewal works and some works to a number of level crossings.

In total, 1,300 tonnes of excavation was undertaken, 450 tonnes of ground stabilisation materials imported, and 600 tonnes of backfill used to

recreate the embankment after installation of the box culvert units.

The cost of the project, which included the two new flood relief culverts, 70 metres of new track, river embankments and spill ways, and also some repointing to another culvert nearby, was approximately ÂŁ3.6 million.

Deborah Elliott, project manager for Network Rail Infrastructure Project Enhancements, told Rail Engineer: “AmcoGiffen has provided a quality installation of two new flood relief culverts, delivered within a 75-hour blockade of the Great Western

Temporary cable bridge at Cowley Bridge junction.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

25

26

ENVIRONMENT Axe valley culvert installation.

main line despite challenges with ground conditions. These culverts have been designed to provide improved flood resilience at this strategic location to help us to keep trains operating more of the time and to enable the infrastructure to recover quicker during prolonged periods of flooding.�

River Axe project

Axe valley culvert installation.

Interestingly, the project near to Axminster shares many similarities with the work near Exeter - apart from the derivation of the river names.

The South Western main line from London Waterloo to Exeter follows the valley of the River Axe as it approaches Axminster. Problems with flooding affecting the railway in this area have called for the installation of concrete culverts at two separate locations, one is known as Axe and the other as Broom, these being the local names of the level crossings adjacent to each of the new structures.

Early development for the scheme was undertaken by Mott MacDonald, working jointly for Network Rail, the Environment Agency and Devon County Council with input from East Devon District Council, and was funded in part by a fund created to help East Devon recover from severe flooding that occurred in 2012. The relationship between the four statutory

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

bodies was formalised through a partnership agreement, and was set up, in no small part, to ensure that the complex environmental controls that had to be complied with to deliver a project in a protected riverine site were met with minimal inter-body disagreement, and therefore minimal cost to the public purse.

The structures were designed

by Arcadis, with continued involvement from Mott MacDonald for hydraulic modelling. At each site, the structure consists of seven box culvert openings, each opening consisting of a male and female unit, joined together along the centre line of the railway. Each unit at the Broom site weighs 38 tonnes while those at the Axe site weigh slightly more at 40 tonnes, essentially being

a larger version of the same design to give a greater crosssectional flow area.

In addition to these 28 precast culvert units, there are precast concrete “restraint� units, placed throughout the length of each structure on each side, to prevent any lateral movement that might occur over time.

Finally, there are precast wing wall units. All of this added up to a significant quantity of material to be conveyed to site.

Construction Shay Murtagh, as at the River Exe project, was the manufacturer of the precast units, which were shipped from Ireland to Liverpool and then brought to site by road.

Stephen Carr, project manager for main contractor Osborne, told Rail Engineer that, in anticipation of the disruption to a local village by these intensive lorry deliveries, a lot of effort went into liaison with the inhabitants regarding mitigation. It was planned that the delivery of all the units would require nine days, with five low-loaders passing through the village each day.

Having involved themselves in the local community, Osborne installed a soft play area for the local primary school, repaired an Armco barrier and did some planting. These generous goodwill initiatives

ENVIRONMENT were motivated by the fact that, apart from coming through the village, the only other way to site was over a minor road bridge with a three-tonne weight restriction.

However, at the eleventh hour, the local council enabled this other route to be used by strengthening the bridge to 40 tonnes! However, the word strengthening is not quite accurate - what was actually done was to install a completely separate new truss bridge spanning above the old arch bridge and founded above the original abutments. Quite an unusual but useful first aid measure!

Work on-site started in midMay, leading up to the main possession, which was to be a nine-day closure of the line in September. Fixed-jib cranes were brought onto each site two weeks prior to the main possession. Once rigged, their first task was offloading the concrete units as they were delivered. Trial placement and coupling up of a pair of units, male and female, was then carried out on a hardstanding area, clear of the railway, to check the ease and manoeuvrability of the units for this process before having to do it ‘for real’ in the main possession.

Removal of the embankments and placement of the box culvert units went well at both sites during the main possession, with only a slight stoppage as high winds above 35 mph prevented the cranes from working. In fact, despite this, the overall work finished with almost a day in hand.

The joint between the male and female units is sealed by a Denso strip while the waterproofing on top of the culvert units, applied before reinstatement of the track ballast, is Wolfin, with installation sub-contracted to Waterseal.

The foundation specified for the box culvert units was quite a thorough one, to take

account of the flood plain soil conditions. It consists of four layers: Terram T1000 textile, followed by 575mm of 6F4 (50mm to dust) material, then two 150mm layers of DoT Type 1 material and finishing with 75mm of a small singlesized gravel. After placement of the restraint units, riprap rock armour was provided as further protection against scour.

During the works, temporary scaffolding bridges were provided at both sites to carry signalling and telecommunications cables.

There was a fibre-optic cable joint which had to be particularly carefully managed to avoid disturbance.

Impressively, at both Axe and Broom sites, the contractor’s office, stores and messing facilities were powered solely by frames of solar panels, on hire from Speedy Hire.

The cost of this project was £9.5 million.

Prevention not cure Returning once more to the similarities between both projects, they can each be visualised as valiant attempts to provide fast-filling bathtubs with larger outlets than previously. But, recognising the great forces of nature, the message is “prevention not cure”, and occasionally there will remain the risk of a closure.

For the River Exe site, the project team estimates that a severe event, maybe closing the railway, will now occur only once every 10 years instead of once every two. And, for the River Axe, Mott MacDonald, on behalf of the project team, has estimated that the new culverts will have extended the severe event frequency from 1 in 5 years to 1 in 20.

Nevertheless, in terms of confident operation of the railway and with minimal disruption, these are very significant gains achieved by these two similar projects.

New Axe valley structures.

Solar panels at Osborne site offices.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

27

28

ENVIRONMENT

Rebuilding Nature’s Networks with the Railway

JENNY MERRIMAN &

ANNE DUGDALE

R

ail’s role in securing a more sustainable future has never been clearer or more important. The sector is already embedding sustainability values into everyday decisions to deliver wider societal benefits through better management of the natural environment. However, the rail sector can still integrate sustainability values further into its business and create opportunities to enhance natural capital.

One concept that is now gaining favour in helping understanding of the natural environment is the term Natural Capital. This incorporates the air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life and which provide us with the renewable and non-renewable

materials that we use every day. Our natural environment also gives us benefits in less obvious ways, such as the regulation of water flows, pollinating insects and the mental and physical wellbeing that we get from spending time outside in nature.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Natural capital is not a new concept; the idea that the natural environment provides us with benefits from which we derive value has been around for centuries. But economic systems have not reflected its value in decision-making. This needs to change fast, with our societal and economic success depending on the very capital that we have been degrading.

As the Government’s ‘Making Space for Nature’ review emphasised in 2010, “Our natural world is not a luxury: it is fundamental to our wellbeing, health and economy”.

ENVIRONMENT

A way forward ‘A Green Future: our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’, was published by the government in January this year and represents a real shift in how nature is perceived and valued. The goals of cleaner air and water, sustainable resource use, plants and animals which are thriving, and better engagement with nature are underpinned by a delivery plan centred around a natural capital approach - incorporating nature’s values into decision-making processes.

This requires a radical shift in the way we approach infrastructure development and there is an expectation that the transport and infrastructure sector will contribute to rebuilding the UK’s natural capital and lead on mitigating against climate change. Indeed, rail figures large in the government’s sister document, ‘The Clean Growth Strategy - leading the way to a low carbon future’. Published last October, this report targets higher growth with lower carbon emissions and identifies low carbon transport solutions as an important element of increasing everyone’s earning potential.

Halving carbon emissions is one of four strategic goals for the railway set out in the 2017 Rail Technical Strategy Capability Delivery Plan, which has been endorsed by both the Rail Delivery Group and the Rail Supply Group.

Take the Thameslink programme and London Bridge station redevelopment for example; WSP helped Network Rail achieve net positive gain for biodiversity by developing robust protocols for biodiversity offsetting and partnering with the London Wildlife Trust. WSP developed the station’s sustainability delivery strategy and it went on to achieve the highest ever CEEQUAL rating for sustainability in civil engineering.

But what if rail development could work with the environment at the outset to enhance natural capital beyond biodiversity gain?

Environmental net gain The 25 Year Environment Plan introduced the idea of embedding an ‘environmental net gain’ principle for development across the UK. From a natural capital perspective, this involves considering the environment in an integrated way, making it central to the development process.

Rail has already made significant progress in deriving multiple economic, environmental and social benefits from the way it delivers infrastructure projects.

Network Rail’s combined environmental and social performance policy - enshrined in mandated standard NR/L1/ENV/100 - exemplifies that understanding and approach.

WSP is supporting Network Rail in delivering low-carbon electrified routes by conducting robust sustainability option appraisals in design, championing social value and pioneering biodiversity accounting to quantify changes as a result of development. High-profile commitments to achieve a biodiversity net gain as part of major infrastructure development have created projectspecific compensatory habitats, which are, in turn, enhancing natural capital.

Network Rail’s recently launched Environmental and Social Appraisal Tool places the impact on environment and society at the forefront of decisionmaking. This WSP-designed tool offers an opportunity to embed a natural capital approach.

The Network Rail property estate, much of which was recently sold to Telereal Trillium and Blackstone Property Partners, generates over £200 million per year. Just as space in stations and railway arches has been repurposed to become a lucrative source of income, reserves of natural capital could be created to attract third party investment by embedding natural capital accounting in asset management and design feasibility.

Given this strong starting point, there is opportunity for rail to demonstrate, through everyday decision-making, maintenance and operational activities, how its activities can enhance the natural environment and deliver cost-effective solutions to today’s challenges. This requires the use of innovative methods and metrics to better measure natural capital.

Biodiversity net gain is fundamental to this process and the 2012 Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) biodiversity accounting metric is about to be updated and improved. Beyond this, other tools

The role of rail Shifting freight from road to rail, and decarbonising and optimising energy efficiency in rail, are clearly part of the solution for clean growth, but how are we addressing natural capital?

Traditionally, the environment has appeared at odds with development, with extensive environmental impact assessments addressing negative impacts. However, rail has embraced the concept of no net biodiversity loss and shown sector leadership in delivering compensatory habitat through development.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

29

30

ENVIRONMENT

and methods are being developed that consider wider economic and environmental benefits, such as ‘natural capital accounts’ which assess baseline value for natural capital, monitor change over time, economic costs and benefits to society, and enable informed decision making.

Currently undergoing piloting by Oxford University, with support from WSP and others, the Eco-metric is a habitats-based tool for valuing the wider goods and services delivered by biodiversity net gain.

It is based on a scoring matrix adjusted for condition and spatial factors, connectivity and time lag, much like the Defra biodiversity metric, and is designed to support users to deliver both biodiversity and environmental net gain.

Driving better outcomes The rail sector is well positioned to deliver ‘future ready’ schemes by scaling-up the effort to tackle the global environmental challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, resource depletion and waste, and to address the lack of reinvestment in natural capital. By collaborating with developers, asset management providers, sector partners and other players in transitoriented development, we can drive these outcomes even further.

Rail will be a key player in the transit-orientated development of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Arc, and the Heathrow expansion plan.

Collaboration between key parties to deliver natural capital as an integral part of those development opportunities will be a critical success factor.

In the Natural Capital Committee’s recent fifth annual report to the Economic Affairs Committee, the independent advisory body to government highlighted that “a willingness to pool existing resources and funding in new ways and to modify prior plans, including through

more integrated approaches” will be vital to determining success. A holistic approach to embedding environmental value will also appeal to increasingly sustainability-savvy passengers and freight transporters who want to contribute to a clean economy and to natural capital.

In turn, expertise and experience in successfully rebuilding natural capital will attract investors.

As we have seen with HS2, and that WSP anticipates will also be a key factor in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Arc, rail shapes the spatial distribution of investment in development. The business case for rail and, ultimately, its funding approval, is not simply about journey time improvement, it’s about maximising broader economic development and social value opportunities for the public good. Integrated programmes of work, as well as multi-investor collaborative design and delivery, have the potential to create even greater reservoirs of natural capital and larger havens for flora and fauna, while better connecting communities and stimulating investment.

By taking a more integrated approach to the design and delivery of major infrastructure projects, rail can help realise the Lawton Principles for ‘Making space for nature’ - ‘More, Bigger, Better and Joined’.

Focussed on the future ‘Future Ready’ is WSP’s global innovation and sustainability programme to design projects that are ready for our future world as well as today. This programme anticipates future trends, staying ahead of regulation and creating greater value for projects and clients.

WSP’s integrated consents, environmental assessment and land referencing teams are dedicated

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

to making the case for sustainable development, with a focus on innovation, economic prosperity and environmental quality. Their multi-disciplinary expertise enables them to function as one single, integrated project delivery team, working together to ensure best practice is followed throughout a project lifecycle.

This means that WSP can embed the latest thinking on natural capital and value creation right at the start of a project, saving time and money further down the line.

An industry leader on the development and application of the Biodiversity Net Gain process, WSP is currently undertaking biodiversity assessments at national and local level for a number of organisations including Highways England.

As work on biodiversity net gain matures within the UK, WSP is at the forefront of ensuring that it’s delivered in the most appropriate way and that opportunities to rebuild our natural capital are explored. This includes expanding ecology services beyond biodiversity net gain to include natural capital assessments and expertise, benefiting from strong ecological foundations and a diversity of experts in air quality, water, economics, consents, environmental impact assessment, social impact evaluation and sustainability.

Protecting and replenishing natural capital is critical to future economic prosperity and wellbeing. Through sensitive management of nature’s assets and delivery of rail infrastructure projects that work with the environment, the sector has enormous potential to demonstrate leadership in rebuilding natural capital and providing society with a sustainable future.

Jenny Merriman is natural capital technical lead and Anne Dugdale is technical director, town planning, with WSP.

GET RAIL MEDIA ‘APPY!

ALL THE LATEST RAIL NEWS AT YOUR FINGERTIPS The Rail Media App includes current and archived issues of Rail Engineer and RailStaff magazine.

There’s no limit to the number of issues you can read.

RAIL ENGINEER Rail Engineer is written by engineers, for engineers. Our writers visit factories, worksites, stations and depots all around the UK to bring you the best in the latest projects and developments in the rail industry.

RAILSTAFF RailStaff focuses on the people in the rail industry, their activities and challenges. It includes regular monthly features, articles on safety and training and all the latest projects and initiatives.

Download the app today – for iOS and Android.

32

FEATURE

CLIVE KESSELL

The UK Rail Supply Chain CHALLENGES AND POLITICS

W

ithout doubt, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) represents a significant membership of companies engaged in supplying the rail industry, covering a multitude of different engineering disciplines. Darren Caplan, the chief executive of RIA, stated at its recent annual conference that the industry contributes £36 billion to the economy with over 300,000 employees, both of which are impressive numbers.

A short introductory video showcased a number of companies that contribute with design, project and implementation activities and demonstrated the need for a pro-active and innovative supply chain to meet the increasing technological demands of an expanding and busy railway. However, as Darren explained in his opening address, four factors make these uncertain times.

Firstly, the big message coming across from RIA member companies is the problem of ‘boom and bust’ with project funding.

Not having a steady work stream leads to recruitment uncertainty and the knock-on effect of having to acquire the right calibre of people when contracts are awarded only to make them redundant again when contracts are completed, all causing an increase in cost and delivery delay.

Secondly, whilst prestige projects such as HS2, Crossrail, National Electrification, Digital Railway and others are welcome, there is little in the way of co-ordination between them to ensure the available resources and skills are effectively distributed.

Thirdly, whilst funding is given to R&D for infrastructure innovation, no equivalent money is available for rolling stock development. The goal of decarbonisation

by 2040 will require continued investment in electrification (although the cost of achieving this has to be brought down) and innovative new rolling stock - not only bi-mode of electric/diesel but battery technology and hydrogen as well. Some companies are already engaged in this, but very much as a speculative venture with no certainty of end-user acceptability.

Fourthly, a satisfactory Brexit is crucial for the rail industry to continue close ongoing technical co-operation with Europe. Around 20 per cent of the UK workforce is made up of mainland European employees and their expertise must not be lost. The UK has excellent export potential and frictionless trade is essential.

The political dimension The compere for the conference was David Begg, now the chief executive of Transport Times but well known for his transport thinking at Edinburgh University over many years. He recalled the success of the ‘Save our Railway’ campaign in the 1990s, when retrenchment of the network was a real threat. Privatisation has brought an increase in ridership and the resulting big investment projects. HS2 to Birmingham is just about assured, but

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

David suggested that doubts may still exist with stage 2b to Leeds and Manchester.

Having the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, as a speaker was a real bonus in these uncertain times.

His enthusiasm for transport in general came across, but he is adamant that value for money has to be achieved. No more so is this reflected than in electrification projects, where both costs and timescale have spiralled out of control, on the Great Western in particular.

Chris Grayling (above and below) was pleased that many good things are coming out of the industry, as witnessed by UK showings at the recent InnoTrans exhibition in Berlin. However, more new thinking is required for the whole railway. New propulsion methods cannot be ignored, witness hydrogen and hybrid train projects in Germany, which could be ideal for

FEATURE the East - West Railway from Oxford to Cambridge, essentially a commuter railway in the making.

Digital railway techniques should provide a solution to many of the current capacity problems. The money is there - but the processes for spending it must be speeded up to ensure investment in new technology and innovation is spent wisely.

The forthcoming Rail Review, whilst concentrating on the franchising model, will aim to produce a joined-up railway, something that has to be a team effort. The industry will change shape and the supply chain must be part of that, and there is a danger that the customers - the travelling public and freight users - have become forgotten with too much focus being placed on engineering for its own sake.

The Trans Pennine upgrade from Leeds to Manchester is predicting line closures of 39 weeks per year for the next five years, which is unacceptable.

The clamour for ‘boom and bust’ removal is noted but the industry should not expect safe and secure business for all time from government. While there is no shortage of work in the UK at present, with many schemes underway (Trans Pennine, Ely Junction, Dawlish consolidation, East-West rail to name but a few), huge opportunities also exist in other countries around the world and the government will support companies that engage with this - Chris Grayling even offered to make ministerial visits if the situation merited it. Despite the problems of 2018 - electrification delay, timetable introduction, Crossrail - all caused by ‘it will be alright on the night’ thinking more opportunities exist for rail than at any time in the past with considerable private investment adding to central funding of £48 billion for CP6.

HS2 is crucial, but it should be viewed as a series of bypasses to free up space on the existing railway rather than having high speed as its primary aim. The industry has to be better at making the case for HS2, where state of the art technology and increased speed is only sensible. The project will not be micromanaged by government and it is up to big companies to support smaller firms down the supply chain.

Calls for a vertically integrated railway will be considered in the current Rail Review, led by Keith Williams, but wholesale nationalisation will only suck private investment out of the industry. Greater employee participation in the industry’s future will help de-militarise the present conflicts.

Alternative politics Andy McDonald, the shadow secretary for transport, exposed some of the myths about the opposition’s view on rail.

Nationalisation will only apply to the TOCs, and only then on franchise expiry. He claimed that the evidence in support of this is overwhelming, using Virgin East Coast and the forthcoming bailout of Anglia to demonstrate that the system is not fit for purpose.

The announced Rail Review will not look at Network Rail, existing franchises or the ORR, and Andy MacDonald (above with David Begg and below) doesn’t believe it is needed to show up the main shortcomings.

Labour has no intention to nationalise any part of the supply chain, indeed a strong supply industry is recognised as vital. A joined-up railway is the prime objective, with timetable compilation and regular asset maintenance being the mainstay of this.

A Labour government will create a public company to run the railways, with the remit of less expensive fares, easier throughjourneys and close co-operation with local authorities. Control periods will be of seven years duration, with planning for the next period taking place two years before expiry

of the existing one to ensure the relevant feedback and lessons are understood.

The ceasing of the electrification schemes is viewed as a major error, although the cost for new projects must be reduced.

Key to part of this is the continuance of the National Skills Academy for Rail with measures put in to retain skilled staff within the industry.

On Brexit, Labour respects the referendum result despite the appalling handling of subsequent negotiations, but would maintain a customs union with the rest of Europe.

Whilst not advocating a return to British Rail, that era of industry did achieve results with minimum money. Some lessons from the past need re-learning. Railways need less political interference and should be left to the rail experts. Network Rail is far from perfect, with costs being too high, not helped by the industry fragmentation. The Digital Railway vision is supported, but the digital platforms must be much more than just the roll out of ETCS. Conference attendees reflecting on the two political viewpoints might even consider that they are not so very different, at least for the longer-term vision.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

33

34

FEATURE All agree that funding for CP6 will be different, with Network Rail no longer pulling down debt. Scottish-style devolution would be welcomed, although it is recognised that Metro operation in the North and Midlands has already achieved this. Neither of these regions has seen major improvement to inter-city routes, maybe because the Network Rail situation restricts the freedom to act.

Crossrail and HS2

The regional panel - (l-r) Barry White, Maria Machancoses, James Price, Bill Reeve.

Regional considerations Regional clamour for a less Londoncentric investment approach is often vocal, but is this factual, or even fair? Four speakers from different parts of the country gave their view.

Bill Reeve, the director of rail for Transport Scotland and an engineer by background, had perhaps the easiest task as the results of Scottish rail investment are there for all to see. New lines, improved journey times, reduced emissions, better accessibility and affordability are all part of this. The electrification of the Shotts line is running ahead of time and within budget.

Scotland recognises that a steady workload to avoid peaks and troughs yields a secure industry employment base, which in turn leads to an alignment of customer and supplier. Developing new projects with Network Rail in CP6 is proving something of a challenge.

Whilst Scotland is only 11 per cent of the UK railway, it has 358 stations and 93.8 million passenger journeys each year, demonstrating how a devolved government can succeed.

Wales is different, as the Welsh Assembly does not have the same devolved powers as Scotland. Nonetheless, James Price from Transport for Wales stated that 100 per cent of the trains in Wales will be renewed by 2023, 50 per cent of them being assembled in the province. Coupled with 600 new jobs and £194 million of investment, this will yield 65 per cent more capacity.

Novel ideas will be free travel for under11s, half fare for 12-18 year olds and free travel for up to 16 year olds off peak.

The big project will be the development of the Cardiff Metro operation, with a minimum of four services per hour

on all routes, vertically integrated as much as possible and with better-value electrification. Improvements to information systems and closures of level crossings will be progressed.

Maria Machancoses, a director on the Midlands Connect body, explained the vision for much improved integration between east and west, from Hereford through to Nottingham. Foreseen is a £575 million boost in annual investment to achieve six million more passengers per year and many more freight paths.

Connectivity with HS2 will be vital, but it needs to be influenced and integrated.

The North is perhaps the most vociferous of the regions with Barry White, the chief executive of Transport for the North, wanting increasing devolution. Current expansion is mainly rolling stock-based plus the Leeds-Manchester upgrade. More is needed, but this will need simplified procurement rules and an avoidance of projects going wrong so as to build a track record for future work.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

A discussion session with Sir Terry Morgan (below), chairman of both Crossrail and HS2, revealed his frustration and annoyance with the Crossrail delay, but lessons must be learned so a similar situation does not emerge with HS2. The importance of a fully functional executive board and a constant peer review group are vital, but three main points emerge: the management team must be capable of delivering the project; getting the appropriate funding and the need to get value for money is vital; and the business case must be continuously reviewed to ensure it is still appropriate. The late announcement of the Crossrail delay is an embarrassment and may have been caused by a ‘can do’ culture being lacking, something which needs putting right.

For HS2, stage 2b (the lines from Crewe to Leeds and Manchester) still needs a selling job, with the business case being based on opening up the midland and northern economies. The harsh reality is that, without stage 2b, the business case for stage 1 to Birmingham is negated, so business support is crucial and must be improved.

Key to successful delivery is building up the skills base, a subject that Sir Terry is passionate about. The apprentice levy scheme has not worked and people within companies have to find the

FEATURE Strangely, Sir John didn’t mention the UK’s appetite to have its high-speed network running in tunnels rather than above ground - something that adds to the cost but does appease Chiltern MPs.

A view from Network Rail

solutions. Crossrail planned to take on 400 apprentices and actually ended up creating over 1,000 new apprenticeships, but HS2 is barely off the starting blocks.

Making the job more attractive to young people has to gather importance, with no more talk of just employing bricklayers and electricians. Using the ‘greybeards’ to capture their experiences was a message to the audience.

The National Infrastructure Commission So where does the NIC fit in with the needs of the rail industry? Sir John Armitt (above), who is its chair and a former chief executive of Network Rail, explained its purpose of looking for a strategic 25-30 year view of the country’s need with a check every five years to ensure continued relevance. A report is produced every six months and some projects are already prioritised, these being Crossrail 2, connectivity of Northern Cities, data for use in smart infrastructure, smart energy and the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. The latter involves rail, road and housing along the route, but there is little evidence of any co-ordination.

Some targets are already set: fibre to every household by 2023, devolution to cities of £43 billion over five years and a transport focus on electric vehicles with charging points to support this.

Road pricing remains controversial, but electric cars may be the trigger for this as the government’s income from road duty declines. The aim is to track every vehicle every day and a public debate will be needed on how to pay for road usage in the future. The intent to devolve expenditure to cities is flawed, as they do not have the resources to deliver.

The NIC is supportive of rail, in particular Crossrail 2 and HS2, with rail getting a dominant percentage of funding £13 billion compared to the strategic road network’s £4 billion, despite rail representing only seven per cent of all journeys made.

A reiteration that HS2 is only worth doing if phase 2b proceeds gave comfort to many. The combination of a nationalised infrastructure and private train companies will never be easy to manage, with some form of vertical integration being needed.

There is concern that the cost of highspeed rail in the UK compares badly with Europe. It seems the UK always has to ‘gold plate’ such projects, an example of always needing a new depot whereas France tries to use existing ones. Sir John was mindful of the old adage for an engineer - someone who can do for £1 what it costs others £5 to do.

At the final count, it is Network Rail that will determine the need and programme for infrastructure spending over the next few years and Andrew Haines (below), its new chief executive, shared his first thoughts on priorities and future direction.

He recently spent a night out with a track gang in Leeds, which demonstrated to him the dedication and commitment of the workforce at the sharp end. Visiting, and listening intently to, all players in the industry - staff, suppliers, stakeholders, politicians - will be an important exercise in understanding how the industry operates and some of its shortcomings, and Andrew Haines has set himself 100 days to understand the railway’s current situation.

Learning from the TOCs will be part of that, noting that South Eastern Trains is now one of the best performers, having a good management team that yields a stable situation delivering 97 per cent performance.

Network Rail is much more than an engineering capability provider, it is a service provision company. It is poor at project delivery, with an uncertain organisational structure. Evidence from the past indicates that the centralist approach favoured by former chief executive Iain Coucher (deputy chief executive of Network Rail 2002-2007 under Sir John Armitt and chief executive 2007-2010) yielded the best results. Since then, other models of organisation have been tried

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

35

36

FEATURE with no conclusive results, maybe reminding people of the long-ago statement from Sir Peter Parker that “the railway falls flat on its interfaces”. Rail alliances do help, the Scottish one being a good example, but it can be a hard learning curve.

The digital railway does not yet have a consensual understanding as to how it can be achieved, but traffic management systems should be seen as all-important.

The Williams Review must not be used as an excuse to do nothing while its conclusions are awaited, and Brexit must not mean a free for all on new standards.

The UK is linked to Europe by the Channel Tunnel and the supply industry is geared to provide products and systems that meet EU standards - to deviate from this would be extremely risky.

It is obvious that Network Rail is going to have to change, primarily to reduce its costs, but it is too early to say how this will be achieved. Perhaps Andrew Haines will have more idea after his 100-day review?

The Rail Supply Industry View A discussion panel of Rosco, freight, operations, installation & maintenance and manufacturing interests considered the ‘Future of Rail’. The view was that rail growth will continue, but the industry must be mindful of the expansion of on-line business activity. Panel members stated that the travel experience of rail passengers still needs improving and should be transformed in the digital age, but the digital railway must be much more than just ETCS provision. Freight operations are also buoyant, despite the loss of coal traffic, but the threat of competition from driverless cars and trucks must not be underestimated.

Discussing diversity: (l-r) Adeline Ginne, Women in Rail; Mohanad Ismail, YRP; Shamit Gaiger, DfT; Mark Lomas, HS2; and David Begg.

The delivery of 7,000 new carriages in the last five years has been remarkable, as it took 21 years to achieve this previously. The knock-on is that around 1,500 vehicles will become redundant in the short term, all of which have useful life left in them, and it is a myth to think that customers necessarily want new trains to improve service.

The various members of the panel came up with a list of items for conference delegates to consider: »» Co-ordination of track and train interests - a move to vertical integration; »» The need for a guiding mind in the overall industry; »» Poor passenger performance and lack of fare integration is not down to the industry structure; »» Access to the industry by SMEs must be improved; »» A low carbon railway must be pursued more vigorously.

On the vexed question of possessions and blockades, the present situation is

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

untenable and much improved planning and co-ordination is necessary. Also, real doubt exists as to whether ETCS can deliver the required capacity benefits.

Skills and diversity There is a deficit of people wishing to join the infrastructure and transport industries, so said a panel made up of representatives of Young Rail Professionals, Women in Rail, DfT and HS2. They stated that rail is around 15 years behind industries such as media, finance and IT, and companies need to change their recruitment models and remove unconscious bias, often apparent by judging initial CV applications. Whilst graduate recruitment has its place, the attractiveness of engineering and diversity remains a problem.

Broadening the age range in schools to focus on non-graduate careers and create multiple routes into the industry apprentice, student, graduate - would be a step forward. Universities should introduce non-graduate courses (Southampton is already doing this) and studying how the armed forces operate would be useful.

Having quotas can be a double-edged sword - they distort reality as well as being illegal - but targets are acceptable.

Overcoming the cultural legacy that rail is a male dominated industry is, however, the biggest challenge.

All in all, the Railway Industry Association organised a fascinating day with strong pointers emerging for all to note. Vertical integration, the removal of boom and bust, remembering the end customer and building the appropriate skill base were the main messages, and the supply industry can influence all of these.

The outcome of Brexit is a worry, and the government needs to ensure UK rail has a secure future in an international world.

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

Innovative solutions are needed.

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

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

22 November 2018 York Racecourse

27 - 28 November 2018 National Convention Centre Canberra Australia

Road Crossings

//

Road Rail Access

//

Pedestrian Crossings

//

Anti-Trespass

SLEEPER SPACING INDEPENDENT

38

FEATURE Battery traction

I

t was just under two years ago that the Rail Engineer went to Birmingham to look at the Midland Metro Alliance programme (issue 146, December 2016).

This was a time of preparation with corporate structures bedding down and a long ‘to do’ list. There were also signs of an emerging buoyant construction industry working all over the City.

Two years later, and we’ve returned to meet Alejandro Moreno, director of the Midland Metro Alliance, and Steve Grimes, the alliance’s project director for the Birmingham Westside Metro extension.

The city centre is now almost unrecognisable and is a challenge to navigate - even on foot - although

GRAHAME TAYLOR

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

pedestrian wayfinding signage from Birmingham City Council, Transport for West Midlands and the Midland Metro Alliance certainly does help.

Everyone and everything has arrived even, for a brief period, the Tory party conference with its associated high security and friendly policemen with machine guns.

Before we go any further it is perhaps worth recapping on what has happened with the West Midlands Metro so far.

The original system began operation in 1999 with a fleet of 16 trams supplied

by AnsaldoBreda. The 20.1km track, serving locations such as the Jewellery Quarter, West Bromwich, Wednesbury and Bilston, ran mainly along the former railway line between Birmingham Snow Hill and Wolverhampton, with a short section of on-street running along Bilston Road to the terminus at St. Georges.

In May 2016, the Birmingham city-centre extension fully opened, which brought the tram right into the heart of the city along busy retail and commercial streets.

This extension was part of a £128 million project that saw the purchase of a new 21-strong fleet of CAF Urbos 3 trams, a refurbished depot at Wednesbury and new stops at St Chads, Bull Street, Corporation Street and Grand Central for New Street station.

The line stops abruptly in Pinfold Street, just round the corner from Grand Central, and aims at the logical

FEATURE extension to Victoria and Centenary Squares and beyond to Edgbaston via Five Ways.

Victoria Square is an area of great architectural significance and it was deemed that catenary wires would not be desirable. Thus, 840 metres of twin track will have no overhead structures and the Urbos trams will run on battery power, an option specified at the time of purchase. The batteries are installed in the roof and, at the time of writing, a number of units have had batteries fitted and one unit now carries the new blue livery of West Midlands Metro (left).

There is another location where battery power is required - this time for more mundane structural clearance reasons.

This is where the tram uses the existing underpass at the vast Five Ways road junction.

Elsewhere on the network…

Work is underway on other parts of the network. The extension from the existing main line to Wolverhampton railway station, currently being demolished and rebuilt, is due for completion by 2020.

To the east, an application has been made for a Transport and Works Act Order to build and operate the Birmingham Eastside Metro extension from Bull Street to Digbeth.

When granted, the order would allow work to start on the 1.05 mile (1.7km) extension which will serve the proposed HS2 station at Curzon Street, offering connections to New Street, Moor Street and Snow Hill railway stations.

A local public inquiry was closed without objection after a day and a half in November 2017. Pending a decision from the Secretary of State, work is scheduled to begin in 2019 and the line could open by 2023.

In the early stages of development is a scheme for the system to be extended past High Street Deritend, via Birmingham City Football Club and Heartlands Hospital to Birmingham Airport/NEC/ International station, terminating at the HS2 interchange station in north Solihull.

A business case has been prepared and was presented to government in June 2017 to extend the Metro from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill. This is an 11km route that runs largely along

an existing heavy-rail corridor which, although it has not been used since March 1993, could still carry full-sized trains. As a result, there is a strategic need for the infrastructure design - the track geometry, gauge clearance, substructure and ballast depth - all being able to accommodate heavy rail in the future.

Footpath possessions All of this is being managed both day-today and strategically by the Midland Metro Alliance and Transport for West Midlands.

This is basically an agreement between three parties - the client, the construction contractor and the designer. The alliance is not a legal entity like a joint venture.

The client is the West Midlands Combined Authority, which is also a partner in the alliance. The contractor is Colas Rail, (supported by sub-alliance partners Colas Limited, Barhale, Bouygues UK and Auctus Management Group). The designer is Egis Rail UK supported by Tony Gee and Partners and Pell Frischmann.

Whatever may be happening with the strategic issues, it is the ‘here and now’ that is very much to the fore. The ‘here and now’ involves constructing

West Midlands Metro

update Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

39

40

FEATURE

modules of tram track through a city centre that has at least four other independent major infrastructure projects on the go.

All of these are competing for space, for resources and for access. None of them have an easy job and none of them would be able to insist on operating in isolation.

There has to be close cooperation on a daily basis.

As well as space/resources/access issues, there are the interests of the travelling public to be considered. It is not unusual for vehicular rights to be restricted but, in the case of Birmingham City centre, it is pedestrians that are most affected. As the work progresses, so do the footpath diversions. In addition, there is a need to maintain some public meeting places for events such as the busy and longestablished Christmas Market.

It is unusual for an urban tramway to be constructed as a continuous worksite. There are too many conflicting road and foot traffic movements.

As a result, the tram way is constructed in sections, and the sections are, in part, determined by the rail lengths involved and the bending of the rail. The design of the slab track is one that has been used for decades in France and allows a variety of infill options, such as concrete, asphalt or even grass. The road finish is completely independent of the structural support.

The rail is a grooved section - 41 GPU with concrete sleepers supplied by Stanton Bonna. The traction current is DC and so there has to be a mechanism to eliminate stray return currents. This is achieved by encapsulating the rail sections with an insulating layer provided by Trelleborg.

Each rail has the layer factory applied, except for the end 500mm. This allows site welding to be carried out, after which the welded area is coated with a dielectric paint and a site-applied insulating coating.

The encapsulation of the rails also assists with the reduction of vibrations from the tramway.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The sections are surrounded and isolated by hoardings. Access is maintained around these islands of activity, but at some stage the sections have to be joined up - an operation that Steve admits can be “tricky - very tricky”. If the window of opportunity for the joining of sections is very limited, then there is the option of constructing precast modules that can be lifted into position.

The original programme of sectional construction has had to be amended in the central area because of the impact of adjoining major developments. As a result, a complete road closure of Paradise Circus is in force.

‘Roman Road’ Although the tramway is run on line-ofsight, and thus does not need continuous signalling, cabling for the information systems for the stops along the route will be fed through dedicated cabling ducts.

Cabling only becomes continuous once all the ducting is installed, but there is no such option for rail.

Much of the work is visible - the construction of the slab for the tracks for example. But, before this can happen, there have been extensive service diversions and upgrades. In Pinfold Street, where some of the cellars associated with the properties on one side of the street extended out under the carriageway, these have been reduced in size and strengthened so as to support the track slab.

There was a brief period of media attention when a ‘Roman road’ was uncovered in the area close to Birmingham’s imposing Town Hall. After analysis by archaeologists, ‘Roman road’ turned out to be ‘late 18th century footpath’, but there were interesting

Egis

Lead designer for the six extensions of the Midland Metro Alliance

www.egis-group.com

2018 Š Egis Š Egis

Contact: Egis Rail UK 115 Baker Street, Marylebone London, W1U6RT Tel: +44 203 763 7100 marketing.egis-rail@egis.fr

42

FEATURE with adjacent developments. With the surrounding schemes in the city agreeing a common datum, and by preparing their drawings in accordance with ISO 44001, the true value of BIM (building information modelling) becomes obvious. Collaboration is not only people talking to each other, the drawings need to talk with each other too!

The whole scheme acts as a conduit to channel funds into the local economy and there have been some impressive results.

A large percentage of materials for the construction projects was sourced locally and, last year, 26 young people previously not in education, employment or training were recruited from the local community to the project.

Suggestions

archaeological finds nonetheless which went on display at the nearby Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery this summer.

An example of high tech cooperation was the blending of drawing data relating to the track details with data associated

Part of the alliance model requires all parties to share pain and to share gain. If works are carried out in a way that creates savings then some of those savings can be used to expand efficiency initiatives.

Alejandro explained the ‘matching-up’ project, which reaches out to start-up companies that have proposed ways of helping the Metro solve specific problems. Currently there are more than 180 different ideas, some of which have

Extension to Stephenson Street, opened 2016 Extension to Centenary Square (2019) Extension to Five Ways and Edgbaston (2021) Extension to Digbeth, coach station and Custard Factory (2023)

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

become a reality. Eighty companies in the West Midlands have said that they have ideas they want to develop - a review process has started and eleven of those eighty could be useful.

At a detailed level, QR codes have been fitted onto machinery and equipment so that it’s possible to track and manage each item. This is an existing tool in the market but it’s new to the alliance.

“Find a good idea somebody already has and bring it here!” said Alejandro.

A good example that is keeping the workforce and public safe is the SMS barrier, which has a very quick deployment from a trailer. It is a new and innovative steel barrier system from Colas Aximum that has been deployed on alliance projects Looking forward, the alliance has to consider the complexities of working alongside the HS2 project. Preliminary designs for the section from Bull Street to the HS2 terminus are underway and HS2 is preparing its drawings.

The alliance has considerable credibility when it comes to working with and alongside some very major projects it’s doing it on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see how the Metro and the high-speed line can blend their efforts.

FEATURE

Rail Engineer - AMG Half Page Light Rail Advert - With Bleed.indd 1

08/11/2018 13:50:03

Part of the Midland Metro Alliance

Consulting Engineers

Bilston Road Track Replacement

For further information on our specialist rail design services, contact Tony Westlake tel: +44 1372 461600 email: rail@tonygee.com

www.tonygee.com

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

43

44

FEATURE

KEITH FENDER

demonstrated in public AU TO N O M O U S TRAMS

T

axi firm Addison Lee announced in mid October that it would be introducing driverless autonomous cars in London by 2021 (its übercompetitor Uber has previously announced similar plans). That’s all very interesting, but, apart from delivering passengers to stations and then collecting them again, what has it got to do with rail?

Autonomous driving for road vehicles, when it happens - experts differ as to whether it is as imminent as Addison Lee think or a decade or more away - will have a big impact on the relative economics of existing urban rail services, especially light rail (trams).

Historically, light rail has been seen as ‘greener’ and more effective that its main on-street competitor - the bus. Light rail is, after all, (normally) electric powered and so doesn’t have emissions problems from internal combustion engines. In addition, by running on track, whether dedicated or shared with road vehicles, light rail is seen as both safer and more productive, offering higher capacity for its footprint of road space than any bus.

However, things are changing. Sales of electric buses increase month-onmonth in cities around the world and autonomous self-driving buses exist they are mostly small shuttle vehicles at present but they are in use on test in cities in many countries right now.

Bus manufacturers are working hard to develop autonomous buses that can handle city streets and, potentially, be more productive in use of road space. The

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

challenge for light rail will be to remain cost effective, especially in terms of running costs. If, in the future, both buses and trams are electrically powered, they will both share the ‘green’ credentials.

The move to autonomous vehicles is not just something that is being driven by high-tech firms in the USA (Tesla and Google being well known proponents, along with Uber). In the UK, the Department for Transport funds the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and, since 2014, the UK government has invested £120 million in autonomous (road) vehicle projects (with a further £68 million coming from industry contributions).

Potsdam pioneer Siemens presented what it called the “world’s first autonomous tram” in Potsdam, just west of Berlin, on the morning the InnoTrans show started on 18 September. Siemens has worked with Potsdam transport operator Verkehrsbetrieb Potsdam (ViP) to develop an autonomous self-driving tram using a Siemens-built Combino prototype/ demonstrator vehicle dating from 1996.

The autonomous light-rail technology is a combination of software and algorithms, created by Siemens and housed onboard the trial vehicle in a large computer cabinet, plus a range of hardware, much supplied by automotive parts specialists, attached to the tram and linked to the computer.

Some parts of the system (the high resolution cameras and radar) have already been used by Siemens in its ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance

Left: LIDAR tram front corner sensor and radar (square below), (Right) Tram front LIDAR (big rectangle) and radar sensor (square below).

FEATURE southern suburbs of Potsdam, based at the Babelsberg depot. The six-kilometre section chosen includes multiple level road and footpath crossings and tests have operated with a human driver in the cab for supervision of the computers for legal reasons. ViP says the tram driver has not yet had to intervene as the sensors have detected obstructions such as cars, people or cyclists and, via the computer system, used the trams’ braking and power control system to stop it safely.

Autonomous tram camera array at top of windscreen.

System), now in service as “Siemens Tram Assistant” in Ulm in southern Germany in new Avenio trams and on order for use in several other European cities including Den Haag in the Netherlands.

In addition to the cameras and radar, the other key hardware items are LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging ) laser-based measurement systems, a very precise GPS system and actuators to control functions such as braking and power control based upon the computer’s analysis of the data from the sensors.

The system uses a digital map of the network and the software relies on the vehicle (or more precisely its onboard computer) being ‘trained’ to know a specific route. When in use, it continuously uses various sensors and GPS to establish where it is, where it is going, at what speed and where it should stop - either for passenger stops or, in

emergencies, stopping immediately if the track is blocked by people, vehicles or other obstructions.

Using its cameras, the system even reads lineside signals, the images being processed by the computer into actionable data - to stop or to proceed - as the tram signalling system only has these two options.

The tram’s stopping accuracy is worth mentioning. The system is designed so the vehicle, which is 26.4 metres long, will stop within a 50cm tolerance at tram stops. In practice, Siemens reported that tests have shown the tram can stop to the 50cm accuracy at stops and then drive from one stop to the next without human intervention.

The autonomous tram prototype has been tested by Siemens and ViP since the summer, operating at up to 50km/h on a section of normal tramway in the

Successful demonstration The autonomous Combino demonstrated it can travel at 50km/h without a driver and proved able to stop precisely in platforms whilst also detecting and, where necessary, braking for pedestrians and vehicles in its path, including some deliberately ‘foolish’ pedestrians with prams arranged by ViP especially to prove this!

The system aims to detect all possible obstructions at 100 metres and can stop the vehicle in less than 80 metres, even at full speed.

The system has been ‘taught’ what requires immediate reaction and what doesn’t. This was demonstrated on the test run when, completely by chance, a fairly large bird (a Hooded Crow) landed on the rails about 50 metres in front of the moving tram - the system did not react as its been taught that items this small do not merit attention (the crow sensed the tram and flew off just in time).

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

45

46

FEATURE Siemens provided onboard screens so the various data from the sensors being analysed by the onboard computer were presented visually for the benefit of the humans onboard.

Unlike traditional communicationsbased train control (CBTC) type systems (as used on the DLR for example), which send operating signals to the train, the Siemens autonomous tram is ‘intelligent’ enough to know where it is going (having been ‘taught’ the routes) and can ‘read’ signals provided for human operators using its cameras, so does not need signalling information transmitted to it (as CBTC does).

Many cities have automated metros using CBTC but these have dedicated infrastructure and, in many cases, segregated platform spaces (with platform edge doors), so the Potsdam test is a very different operating environment.

Looking forward Siemens and ViP plan to expand the trial area to more of the Potsdam network, including the city centre, and may, as a first stage, trial completely unmanned operation in the tram depot.

The current legal framework under which trams operate in Germany (BOStrab rules) makes passenger operation without a driver unlikely (although not impossible - automated U-Bahn metro trains already operate under the same legal framework in Nuremburg) and this test vehicle is not designed for public use.

Legal changes to permit autonomous operation of light rail systems would probably follow similar legal changes currently being considered in many

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

countries, including the UK, to permit autonomous self-driving cars and other road vehicles - in most countries light rail regulations are a hybrid mix of road traffic and railway operating rules.

Siemens may have separately developed the Potsdam autonomous tram and sold its ADAS driver-assistance package to several operators, but there is competition emerging for rail drivers’ assistance systems. Bombardier has been supplying Frankfurt’s tram operator VFG with a ‘Driver Assistance System’ using forward looking cameras since 2015.

In addition, German equipment supplier ZF launched a passive collision-avoidance driver-assistance system for trams using artificial intelligence at Innotrans. ZF claims that its ProAI computer system is capable of ‘deep learning’ and using data from onboard radar, cameras and LIDAR to identify and warn the driver about potentially dangerous situations at tram stops, where many people are often moving around the exterior of the tram.

Driver assistance (or replacement?)

Fully autonomous trains are already in operation - in the largely unpopulated Pilbara region of Western Australia

where mining company Rio Tinto has been operating 28,000 tonne freight trains without drivers since the summer of 2018. This solution uses an ATO over ETCS L2 solution from Ansaldo STS, combined with onboard sensors for location and speed plus lineside cameras fed to a central control centre for the few locations where human activity may intersect with the railway, such as at level crossings.

The same overlay of ETCS and ATO (as used for the Thameslink ‘core’ in London) is seen by many as the approach for main line rail automation to make it possible in densely populated cities rather than the Australian outback, although many issues remain unresolved.

The Potsdam trial certainly shows the technology has the potential to act as a supervisor for human drivers, preventing, for example, over-speed operation on curves or avoiding collisions with pedestrians or vehicles which, for whatever reason, stray into the path of the vehicle at the last minute.

Whether the technology demonstrated in Potsdam could actually safely replace human drivers/supervisors for unfenced light rail systems anytime in the near future is not clear; however drivers make up the largest part of a light rail operators wage bill (in Potsdam ViP has 116 tram drivers for 53 trams). If buses and taxis migrate to autonomous operation in cities, light rail will probably need to as well so as to avoid being substantially more expensive to operate (and therefore unlikely to attract capital expenditure for fleet or infrastructure renewals).

Arguably, if future legislation and technology permits autonomous buses and cars to share roads with pedestrians and cyclists, then a rail guided vehicle such as a tram - should be easier to drive autonomously in safety. Unlike a self driving bus, its route is fixed by the rails and pedestrians and other road users are able to see them and thus be aware of the potential for a tram to appear.

FEATURE

Queen’s Award Winning Composite Product Solutions Station Platforms

Structural Stair Treads

Dura Platform Composite Station Platforms for New Builds and Refurbs

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

BEFORE

AFTER

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

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

...designed for the future Industrial

Rail

Marine

Decking

Cladding

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

47

48

FEATURE

DAVID BICKELL

THE DIGITAL RAILWAY

PROGRESSES TO THE EAST COAST MAIN LINE

F

ollowing on from the successful, world-first deployment of Automatic Train Operation (ATO) with the European Train Control System (ETCS) on the mainline railway in passenger service through the Thameslink core, the focus moves to the planned £1.8 billion East Coast main line (ECML) installation of ETCS.

Rail Engineer was invited to a Network Rail briefing describing how the LNE & East Midlands route, in conjunction with the Digital Railway, is going out to tender with a radical new approach for renewal of the train control systems on the ECML north from King’s Cross.

This event was hosted by Toufic Machnouk, route programme director LNE&EM, who explained that the intention is to achieve meaningful, feasible and sustained benefits that can be felt by passengers and freight users. The key ingredients of this will be closer working within the industry and a commitment from the supplier to maintain the product throughout its life, ensuring that everyone involved is immersed in the operational railway.

Furthermore, the Early Contractor Involvement programme (ECI), has established the need for contractor engagement starting very early in the development phase, looking closely at how technology can benefit the operational railway.

Phil Bennett, commercial director of the Digital Railway programme, elucidated the ‘design, build and maintain’ delivery model, which is very different to the way in which the industry has hitherto procured signalling, or indeed almost any activity.

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

This functionality is termed Automatic Train Protection (ATP), providing continuous monitoring of the train. It therefore offers a higher level of safety than the current system-wide analogue Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), which is not continuous, not provided at every signal, and not failsafe.

At ETCS Level 2, the onboard equipment transmits and receives data from the signalling centre via the GSM-R radio network and the Radio Block Centre. Balises in the four-foot communicate with the train to provide position references. All other conventional signalling equipment is provided,

York ROC will supersede existing NX signalling control panels.

FEATURE Toufic Machnouk said the route is keen to exploit the benefits of TM at an early stage of the programme and, if it were to be deployed all the way to York and across the Pennines to Manchester, would bring substantial benefits.

The ETCS programme

Alstom ETCS DMI on test train. including train detection, point-operating machines, interlocking, and signaller interface.

Lineside signals may or may not be provided, but retaining them allows trains to run on the route, whether or not they are fitted with ETCS. Not providing lineside signals, as on the Cambrian lines early deployment scheme, means than only trains with a healthy ETCS may operate on the line. Removing signals will reduce the resources otherwise needed to undertake signal faulting and maintenance on the line, although modern LED signals are generally maintenance free, compared with filament bulbs that require regular technician visits to check lamp voltages and replace faulty bulbs.

The important difference, compared with conventional multiple aspect signalling, is that braking distances are continuously recalculated by the onboard European Vital Computer (EVC) in accordance with the movement authority (MA) received from the interlocking. To achieve an accurate stopping position, the driver will look out of the cab window and observe the physical location of the end of MA. This is achieved by the provision of either conventional colour light signals (if fitted) and/or non-illuminated, reflectorised block markers. The positioning of block markers, unlike colour light signals, is not constrained by braking distance and, in conjunction with extra train detection sections, additional block markers may be provided to allow trains to close up, thereby increasing capacity.

The MA is continuously updated on the DMI, allowing the driver to accelerate immediately should conditions ahead improve, rather than having to wait for the next signal to come into view, thereby considerably improving performance and capacity.

ATO, if provided, adds a further layer of performance and capacity enhancement.

Train operators’ professional driving policies are designed to reduce the signal passed at danger (SPAD) risk but this can also result in cautious braking on the approach to signals displaying caution and stop aspects.

Although the ETCS DMI provides the driver with a visual display of maximum permitted speed and target speed, controlling the actual speed and braking is still in the hands of the driver.

Consistent driving, with actual braking that closely aligns with the calculated curve, will be achieved by the provision of ATO. ETCS is a pre-requisite for the adoption of ATO.

The first installation of ETCS in the UK was in 2010 on the Cambrian lines in Wales, known as the early deployment scheme (EDS) and intended to be a lesson learning exercise. This was followed by the Thameslink core installation. The third installation of ETCS is on the short Heathrow airport spur and, when testing has been completed, will be used by the new Elizabeth line (Crossrail) Class 345 trains and Heathrow Express Class 387s.

ETCS is very expensive, and making a case for further installations has not been easy. However, at the southern end of the ECML, all the key factors are in phase, making one of most compelling cases to organise for the deployment of the digital railway in this area: »» Once in a generation renewal cycle; »» Signalling assets are nearing end of life; »» Physical constraints of a two-track mixed-traffic railway at Welwyn; »» Southern end of the ECML is operating at limits of timetabling capacity; »» Investment in new trains means 70 per cent of passenger trains come fitted with ETCS (new Hitachi and Siemens trains).

Traffic management Today, the effectiveness of traffic regulation depends upon human intervention by signallers and train controllers adopting a proactive approach to reducing overall delay.

This is where TM comes in - providing suitable tools to facilitate decision making that optimises the flow of traffic over a wide area, minimising delay minutes when there is perturbation and thereby ensuring the best outcomes for passengers and freight.

TM is not dependent upon having ETCS and may therefore now be deployed at any signalling centre. TM may be integrated with Automatic Route Setting (ARS) in order to optimise built-in regulating strategies, or it may just output recommendations for signallers.

Further optimisation of train regulation is achieved by giving live speed advice to train drivers, ensuring the trains arrive at points of conflict at the right time to avoid a capacity eating dead stand. This is achieved by linking TM to the Connected Driver Advice System (C-DAS).

On-board train ETCS processor (European Vital Computer).

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

49

50

FEATURE

Profile of signalling technology and age on the whole of the ECML Signal Box

In service

Signaller interface

Interlockings

Kings Cross

1976

NX panel; Siemens WESTCAD workstation for Hertford North;

Relays, SSI at Finsbury Park, Alstom Smartlock CBI at Hertford North

Peterborough

1972

NX panel

Relays, SSI in PB station area

Doncaster

1979

NX panel

Relays

York

1989

IECC workstations

SSI

Tyneside

1991

IECC workstations

SSI

Morpeth

1991

NX panel

SSI

Almouth

1990

NX panel

SSI

Tweedmouth

1990

NX panel

SSI

Edinburgh

2006

IECC workstations

Relays, SSI at Waverley station

As can be seen from the box (right), the signalling between King’s Cross and Peterborough mostly dates from the Great Northern Suburban Electrification programme of the 1970s and is ready for total renewal, whilst the installations north thereof relate to the East Coast electrification scheme of around 1990.

Various life extension works have been carried out over the years, including the Peterborough station area interlocking renewal with Alstom MkIIa SSI in 2004, and complete refurbishment of the NX panel with new mosaic tiles supplied by Unipart Rail at Kings Cross in 2006/7.

Hence it is envisaged that provision of ETCS will align with renewal priorities, progressing north from King’s Cross and Moorgate to Peterborough North. This initial scheme will be a huge catalyst for renewals onwards to Doncaster and, beyond that, will naturally become ETCS with the progression of separate train fitment contracts. Continuity of work will ensure retention of knowledge as technical teams move from project to project.

Principles of approach • • • • • •

NX = Push button route setting from entrance to exit SSI = Solid State Interlocking CBI = Computer Based Interlocking IECC = Integrated Electronic Control Centre

Industry transformation programme bringing track and train closer together throughout Fundamentally different delivery model In service, conventional signalling control systems utilise programme and benefits cycle the skills of signallers, mobile operations managers, line Greater proximity in working between operators and technology providers controllers, maintenance technicians and engineers employed Based on industry Concept of Operations & Asset Management

by Network Rail, working in the control centres and lineside.

Maintenance and faulting of train-borne AWS/TPWS is a Transfer of risk to private sector where best placed to manage it separate process involving staff from train operators and Technology partnership procured on outcome basis to support transformation leasing companies. throughout lifecycle With ETCS, more vital equipment associated with the safe movement of trains moves from the lineside into to the train Based on lessons learnt and best practices from multiple industries, UK and aboard

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

itself. So, the organisational structure and roles will evolve with the process. For example, signallers and controllers will need

FEATURE to embrace traffic management techniques, drivers will need to learn in-cab signalling and signal technicians may need to gain synergy with rolling stock engineers.

The delivery model is depicted in the self-explanatory V diagram.

Suppliers bid to satisfy customer outcomes rather than ECML Digital Outcomes for Customers technical specifications. While the business case agreed with the DfT is based on ETCS Level 2 Baseline 3, the door is open for innovation, such as the additional flexibilityachieving high that ETCS Level 3 • 20% improvement in system capacity hybrid would facilitate, but other options like this will only be performance mixed traffic railway considered if the technology is ready.

•

=8tph high performance long distance high speed services to and from Lincolnshire, Leeds, Newcastle, Approach and outcomes This delivery model will be based on the following approach: Scotland and the North East

•

»» Industry transformation programme bringing track and train closer together throughout programme and benefits cycle; =20tph through Welwyn ‐ two track constraint »» Greater proximity in working between operators and technology providers; Route and network wide catalyst, once ECML south is »» Based on industry concept of operations and asset done, all renewal further north will naturally be ETCS management; and significantly more efficient »» Transfer of risk to private sector, which is best placed to manage it; Reduced delays to passengers through improved system »» Technology partnership procured on an outcome basis to reliability support transformation throughout the lifecycle; Improved passenger safety »» Based on lessons learnt andfrom continuous automatic best practices from multiple train protection and improved workforce safety by industries, UK and abroad. reducing maintenance requirement This is intended to bring about the following outcomes, for the benefit of passengers and customers: re‐plan capability, Traffic Management providing plan / »» 20 per cent improvement in system capacity on a high enabling integration with Stock and Crew, and performance, mixed traffic railway; Connected Driver Advisory System »» Eight trains per hour (tph) provide a high performance, long Enabler for bringing track and train closer together distance high-speed services to and from Lincolnshire, Leeds, Newcastle, Scotland and the North East; »» Addition two commuter services per hour to relieve crowding; »» 20tph through the Welwyn two-track constraint; »» Route and network-wide catalyst - once ECML south is complete, all renewal further north will naturally be ETCS and significantly more efficient; »» Reduced delays to passengers through improved system reliability; »» Improved passenger safety from continuous automatic train protection and improved workforce safety by reducing maintenance requirement; »» Traffic Management providing plan/re-plan capability, enabling integration with stock and crew, and with C-DAS; »» Enabler for bringing track and train closer together.

• •

• •

•

•

+2tph commuter services to relieve crowding

125mph maximum speed Intriguingly, missing from the list of outcomes is the ability to operate trains in excess of 125mph (200km/h). With the electrification of the ECML in the late 1980s, a new fleet of Class 91 locomotives was built with a capability of 140mph (225km/h).

To provide the additional braking distance required by the higher speed, an experiment was conducted in 1988 between Peterborough and Stoke Tunnel, deploying flashing green aspects which gave authority to exceed 125 mph. A steady green meant reduce speed to 125 mph. For all other trains, a flashing green had the same meaning as a steady green.

However, faster trains require a higher level of concentration in the driving cab. Test running revealed that 125 mph was the maximum speed at which a driver could safely observe a signal aspect, assimilate its meaning and act appropriately. Speeds above 125 mph would therefore require in-cab signalling.

Thirty years later, and ETCS is bringing that in-cab signalling to the ECML, but the world has moved on. Higher speeds mean fewer paths will be available on this mixed traffic railway for stopping and freight trains. While increasing capacity on the ECML is crucial to help meet the burgeoning demand, reducing the journey time by a few minutes may not be as important for passengers as it was in BR days, given today’s mobile connectivity with office, home, friends and family that was undreamt of in the 1980s.

Of course, high-speed rail is important for long distance journeys, but this role is migrating from the classic main lines to new, dedicated, purpose built, very high-speed routes such as HS2, leaving the existing network to provide more capacity and journey opportunities at intermediate towns and cities.

Accordingly, speeds above 125 mph are not on the agenda for this phase of work on the ECML.

Procurement strategy The strategy is focussed around: »» Establishing long term collaborative partnerships (three for this scheme); »» Only by delivering outcomes do partners get rewarded; »» Bringing in supply chain partners very much earlier in the process; »» Establishing a longer-term relationship; »» Focussing on defining, delivering and thereafter maintaining support throughout the life of the assets of those solutions;

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

51

52

FEATURE

Existing NX panels at King’s Cross and Peterborough will be replaced by workstations like this one at Rugby ROC. »» Linking reward to those supply chain partners through those contract mechanisms to successfully achieve those outcomes.

In order to do this, Network Rail has moved to a different contract model and introduced NEC4, a widely recognised collaborative form of standard construction industry contract, in particular the ‘design, build, maintain’ model, contracting for the whole of the asset life. Bids to determine the successful supplier will be evaluated based on whole life provision of service.

To support the outcomes of a digital railway on the ECML, Network Rail Digital Railway is seeking to establish a single supplier framework agreement to deliver Digital Train Control Systems on the ECML from King’s Cross/ Moorgate to Peterborough North. This framework agreement will include call-off contracts both for the outline design of the system and/or for the detailed design, build, supply and installation of the system together with ancillary conventional signalling, as required, to facilitate delivery of the digital system and long term (envisaged to be 30 years) maintenance of the system.

This train control partner (TCP) is expected to be selected in Spring 2019.

Network Rail will call off packets of activity with the Moorgate branch forming one package, east coast south the second package and north of Peterborough the third package, all of which will be of 30 years duration. £1-1.8 billion is the anticipated aggregate value of the call-off over the thirty-year life, including long term service arrangement as well as physical delivery.

Two further partners are sought through separate contracts. A railway system integration partner, most likely a consultancy with experience in change management, will be appointed to provide services supporting the route client in managing cross-industry interfaces. Technical systems integration will remain the responsibility of the TCP. In addition, a traffic management partner will be appointed for the procurement of traffic management systems from King’s Cross to Doncaster South. These TM systems will be required to interface with C-DAS. So as not to disadvantage smaller suppliers, TM is a separate contract, as it is perceived that there are several small

NX panel at King’s Cross.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

suppliers in this market place. For the TCP, bidders can be consortia, giving the opportunity for suppliers to come together.

A look to the future Business cases are being worked up for the provision of ETCS to other routes including Anglia, TransPennine, Wessex and Western. The Castlefield corridor in Manchester is likely to receive early attention to address some of the pressing capacity issues there, following opening of the new Ordsall chord.

Converting the whole rail network to a digital train control platform is very much a long-term project, but the first big steps are now being taken to commence intercity main line roll-out.

ASPECT2019

Institution of Railway Signal Engineers | Delft University of Technology | IRSE Nederland

Performance Threat Disrupt

Resilience

Cyber Infrastructure Intelligence Operations Monitoring Technology Signalling Standards Asset Risk Disaster

Respond

Durability

Disruption

Unplanned Services System Future Network Minimise Adapting Standardisation Condition monitoring Defence Combined Maintained Legislation

Control Delivery Unexpected Communications Jamming

Best practice Vulnerable Security

Critical Human Telecoms Impact Management Environment Protection Safety Failure Attack Error

Change

CALL FOR PAPERS

ASPECT 2019, the international conference organised by the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE), will be held on 23-24 October 2019 at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

IRSE has now issued a call for papers with a particular emphasis on the 2019 conference theme of resilience.

Visit irse.info/abstract before 30 November 2018 to register an interest.

@IRSEHQ irse.info/aspect

54

FEATURE

cybersecurity ADVANCES IN RAILWAY

I

t’s a fact that no organisation is safe from cyber-attack. Threats are evolving minute-by-minute and are becoming increasingly complex. As railways become increasingly dependant on digital technologies, with IP (internet protocol) used for devices from CCTV cameras to mission-critical train control systems, they also need to protect themselves by ensuring they have robust cyber security.

Railway networks are becoming more open and more interconnected. They have to be, in order to deliver the integrated digital railway and to make the most of ‘big data’. Some control engineers are understandably tempted to stick with traditional closed networks to maintain security. But this is not as easy as it sounds and is not without risk.

It would also miss out on many of the benefits of a modern IP communications network.

Traditional serial-based communications networks are now nearly impossible to procure, support and change. Even with no connection to other networks, the traditional ‘secure’ closed network has always been vulnerable to attacks from removable media, from the ‘man in the middle’ and from replacement servers and components, which might themselves be infected.

In addition, due to the outdated nature of these networks, if help or assistance is required from specialists, they may be hours or days away rather than being

able to give online help. So, when an intervention is required on a remotely located asset, the railway asset manager may not have the competent resource available to send to site and, even if resource is available, sending someone to a remote lineside location may put them at risk.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

PAUL DARLINGTON

Many infrastructure managers require a whole-life partnership with the OEM, but this can only be efficiently delivered if the OEM can access the network and assets remotely. This is why an IP-connected infrastructure has many benefits, but it needs to be secure and safe, with robust cybersecurity management in place.

FEATURE Project Honeytrain Some may think that a railway network is low down on a hacker’s priority list of networks to attack, but that is not the case.

In 2015, project Honeytrain was created. A model was set up of a mythical, virtual rail transport control and operating system as a ‘honeypot’ to hackers, in order to assess the cyber-attack risk to rail.

A virtual rail infrastructure was reproduced with real hardware including computer systems and communication protocols.

Software components of automation and control systems, identical to those used on existing railway networks, and CCTV videos of real stations and train operator workstations were simulated, including a mythical customised website with general information, timetables, ticketing and information about train disruption. Logins and passwords were left at their defaults and no security measures were enabled. To hackers around the world, though, it appeared to be a real railway.

The results were alarming. The project was in operation for only 6 weeks, but a total of 2.7 million attacks were identified.

The majority (61 per cent) of attempted attacks occurred on the media server and firewall components. It was believed that the majority were carried out as automated dictionary attacks, with a hacker trying to identify an unknown password using a dictionary list. Often, whole dictionaries, as well as known or commonly successful combinations, are used to create such a list. This is why a simple text word on its own should never be used as a password.

It was observed that one hacker tried to control a mythical signal using another dictionary attack. The attack was not successful, but it was identified that the attacker had a deep knowledge of the industrial control systems involved, and that the actions were performed deliberately. Another attack was on the mythical railway media server. Valid login credentials were determined and the aim of the attack was to change the content of the railway website.

The analysis of the results concluded that relatively small measures (for example robust passwords and firewalls) would have been sufficient to prevent unauthorised access to railway systems, or to avoid their visibility within the internet.

PHOTO: PA

Hacked passenger-information screen at Frankfurt am Main station, Germany, May 2017.

However, there are many examples of how even the most basic of security recommendations are not being followed - such as revealing login details. In the UK, a 2015 TV documentary revealed how one railway operations centre employee had written down username and password details on a monitor. In other industries and businesses, more sophisticated attacks on critical infrastructures are being detected around the world, so railway infrastructure managers need to remain one step ahead and deploy the best security available.

In some enterprise networks, it is reported that: every 4 seconds - an unknown malware is downloaded, every 53 seconds - a bot communicates with its command and control centre, every 81 seconds - a known malware is downloaded, every 4 minutes - a high-risk application is used, and every 32 minutes - sensitive data is sent outside the organisation.

In February 2016, the Department for Transport stated in its rail cyber security guidance to industry: “Railway systems are becoming vulnerable to cyber attack due to the move away from bespoke stand-alone systems to open-platform, standardised equipment built using commercial, off the shelf (COTS) components, and the increasing use of networked control and automation systems that can be accessed remotely via public and private (communications) networks.”

Security agencies around the world recognise the risks. In the US, cyber-security is seen as a serious economic and national threat, with the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (USCERT) creating a framework to support the protection of critical infrastructure. In Europe, the EU has proposed a cyber-security strategy outlining its vision, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and defining actions required to protect citizens. In Asia, some governments have established national cyber-security policies.

Consequently, railway security must be stepped up with a multilayered and active security approach to provide the right balance of costs with the in-depth protection needed to defend against today’s security threats.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

55

56

FEATURE Cybersecurity risks Breaching an organisation’s cyber defences doesn’t always take a sophisticated attack by a foreign government or crime syndicate. Security breaches may be caused by human error, from lack of compliance with good practise or by configuration errors.

Unfortunately, even the most competent and prepared staff can be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of threats that that need to be addressed. Cybersecurity management is made even more difficult as there is a cybersecurity skillset shortage, which makes a human-centric and manually intensive incident response difficult.

The key, though, is automation, which can enhance both the investigation and mitigation of threats.

Capabilities that can efficiently protect networks include security automation, incident response plans, standards and policies, end-to-end security, security in depth (and not just at the edges), analytics to correlate security-related information, devices and cloud layers to spot suspicious activity and threats. Machine learning enables the identification of potential compromises by using threat intelligence information across the network and an active defence-in-depth approach.

Rail infrastructure managers need to deploy equally sophisticated protection measures as those used by hackers.

These need to include: »» Detecting, mitigating and using AI to predict new threats; »» Reducing the vulnerable areas; »» Improving analytics to correlate data from multiple domains and to help identify suspicious, malicious, or inadvertent anomalies; »» Combining threat intelligence data and security analytics in order to prescribe appropriate response more effectively and provide strategic mitigation to threats.

End-to-end protection Global communications group Nokia has extensive expertise and experience in the development of cybersecurity best practices for the railway. Over the years, it has worked with many networks to ascertain the risks and the underlying operational processes required. This enables the scope and appropriate level of protection to be defined.

The latest security principle is based upon SOAR - Security Orchestration Analytics and Response. It is a methodology that continuously assesses and learns with predictive capability.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Diagram of the SOAR methodology.

Nokia advocates ‘defence in depth’ as a balanced, economically feasible approach to security. It aims to build cyber defences aligned with a company’s network operational objectives and its network capabilities. The focus is always on processes and technologies that achieve a layered security model that spans across networks, applications, data, identity and access management, the principle being a layered series of defences that close off any attempts to exploit security gaps.

Game changer Adopting an in-depth security approach can bring many advantages: Automation meets the avalanche of threats: Automating incident response ensures defences are not overwhelmed by thousands of daily alerts. Security automation that encompasses business processes, regulations and security policies keeps pace with the rapid rise in attacks.

End-to-end security protects all network technologies: Endto-end security encompasses the entire network and its security processes, such as access management and audit compliance; network security; and security management for IoT (Internet of Things) devices.

Network segmentation and firewall confine threats: Network segmentation with IP/MPLS (multiprotocol label switching) virtual private networks, based on rail applications or other policies, provides traffic isolation and hampers lateral movement of hackers as they scout the network.

Analytics for continuous improvement: Security analytics correlates data from across the network, devices and cloud layers to spot and provide insight into suspicious anomalies.

With machine learning, the effectiveness of security increases continuously.

Encryption protects data: With multi-layer encryption, even should a perpetrator tap into the communication channels, confidentiality, integrity and authenticity are still protected.

Nokia’s security expertise is rooted in its strong presence in the public safety segment and as a trusted partner for public network operators around the world. With more than 30 years of experience in the rail industry, the company is confident that it can offer an advanced and comprehensive approach. Its mission-critical network products, for IP/MPLS and LTE (longterm evolution), feature strong, built-in security mechanisms.

Combined with the end-to-end security architecture of its NetGuard portfolio of products, infrastructure managers can be provided with industry-best protection, with the right balance of costs and the in-depth protection needed to defend railways against today’s security threats.

FEATURE IP-based networks Fundamentally, there are two areas to address. Data transmitted across transmission infrastructure, be it fibre, microwave or copper, and data transmitted across wireless access infrastructure - GSM, LTE or WiFi. Ultimately, the payload is IP-based, regardless of the layers below.

Looking at the first area, fixed infrastructure, all layers of transmission need to be addressed. These are, typically, optical and microwave. These are considered to be the ‘Layer 0’ transmission. It does not understand the data but simply pushes it from one point to another.

Layer 1 is typically an electrical switching layer. At this layer, there is more flexibility to package the data (by using OTN optical transport networks - for example) but it is still blind to its contents.

Layer 2 is now into Ethernet, where data contents are understood - this is typically called the switching layer. Layer 3 is the IP layer, where data is seen and understood this is the routing layer.

Nokia provides secure key encryption at all communication layers, with all keys (used to encrypt and decrypt data) managed by the Nokia Encryption Platform.

By including the wireless access part of the end-to-end railway connectivity story, then LTE connectivity adds further security to an already very secure transmission.

One of the world’s largest providers of GSM-R, Nokia is in the forefront of development on the next generation of wireless network technologies for rail, in the shape of LTE and future 5G technologies. LTE security is based on two layers of protection instead of

one-layer perimeter security as in earlier generations of GSM. The first layer deals with security in the radio access network, while the second layer provides security in the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network.

Ultimately, LTE access, coupled with the secure transmission, means that data integrity is maintained at all times.

In practice, the implementation of this two-layer security architecture is subject to vendors’ interpretation and, therefore, may expose a mission-critical network to threats if not engineered properly. The encryption of all traffic between base station and core network is essential.

In railway networks, emergency voice services depend on group communications in which users can simultaneously communicate with groups of other users. These require specific arrangements to secure group call communication and direct mode of operation, as well as ensuring the security of both device and back end control servers.

Effective cybersecurity is essential for the safe adoption of new IPbased applications for train control, traffic management, maintenance,

monitoring, video protection and passenger information systems. Security incidents can cost railway operators in many ways - not just the loss of train paths from disrupted services, but the recovery and restoration costs, potential lawsuits, damage to brand reputation, compensation to users and noncompliance penalties.

Railways face increasingly stringent legal, regulatory and compliance requirements, making them directly accountable for ensuring effective information security and data privacy. End-to-end security enables rail managers to focus on their mission-critical responsibilities without being distracted by the daily operation of a telecom business or by having to work with multiple security vendors.

Nokia combines its world-class expertise in both GSM-R, LTE Optical and IP to achieve mission-critical security that addresses the vulnerabilities specific to these technologies. Mission-critical network solutions (IP/MPLS, optical, LTE) not only deliver network reliability, performance and scalability, but can also defend against security threats and attacks if engineered correctly.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

57

58

FEATURE Construction train parked in tunnel at Fisher Street crossover.

CLIVE KESSELL

Crossrails considered

T

he confident prediction that Crossrail (the Elizabeth line) would open its central core in December this year has been shattered by the recent announcement that a nine-month delay will be incurred, with the line now not expected to open until autumn 2019.

In parallel, the Policy Forum for London (under its Westminster Forum Projects organisation) recently organised a seminar to publicise the huge impact that Crossrail will have for London and to promote the need for Crossrail 2 to cope with the general growth and expansion of the city.

This took place in front of an audience made up of London business interests, transport and engineering consultants, Department of Transport officials, the engineering community, politicians and the press. The assembled gathering was there to primarily learn what had gone wrong.

Elizabeth line update A trifle embarrassed by being the opening speaker, Howard Smith, the director of operations for the Elizabeth line under TfL (Transport for London), skirted round the recent delay controversy and concentrated on the positive benefits that Crossrail will bring. A boost to the UK economy of ÂŁ42 billion is predicted.

London’s rail capacity will be increased by 10 per cent and an extra 1.5 million people will be within 45 minutes of their main employment base. An estimated 200 million passengers will use the line every year.

A new fleet of trains is being built (the Class 345), with some already in service on the Liverpool Street - Shenfield line and from Paddington to Hayes and

Harlington (this augmenting the Heathrow Connect service). Performance figures for these sections are 95.8 and 96.1 per cent PPM (public performance measure) respectively. The trains are proving popular, with air conditioning and walk through carriage connections.

The Elizabeth line stations will be continuously staffed, have 24-hour patrols at weekends and will be accredited under the British Transport Police’s secure stations scheme.

A high-level specification for maintenance and cleaning will be put in place for both trains and stations. The Old Oak Common depot is complete, employing 140 new recruits to the industry as well as transferring engineers and technicians in from other rail companies.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Once complete, Farringdon will be a major interchange station linking to both Thameslink and the Underground, with expectations that it will become busier than Clapham Junction. The fare structure will be fully integrated to the London Oyster card structure, with Heathrow Airport being added to the zone perimeters. National rail point-to-point fares will remain.

By autumn 2019, the line should be operating as three separate sections: Paddington to Heathrow, Liverpool Street to Shenfield, Paddington to Abbey Wood.

Integration of these into multi route destinations including Reading will come later with no date given.

Not covered in this seminar was how the line will be controlled for train movements - the signalling. This is complex and involves three different systems. The current signalling between Liverpool St and Shenfield is TPWS/AWS (train protection and warning system/ automatic warning system), inherited

FEATURE from Network Rail. Westwards, from Paddington to Reading, is similar, but this does not include the Heathrow spur which will be ETCS Level 2 (European train control system) from Airport Junction and is expected to be commissioned in early 2019, hence the augmented Crossrail Heathrow Connect service is currently terminating at Hayes and Harlington.

The central core is a CBTC system (computer-based train control) with automatic train operation (ATO) being provided by Siemens, and this will extend also to Abbey Wood. Thus, when fully commissioned, trains will have to change to a different signalling system at the respective boundaries. Not an ideal situation but considered necessary to achieve the 32tph (trains per hour) throughput in the central core section.

The business impact A number of subsequent speakers expressed their disappointment at the delay to the opening. David Leam from London First, who had been anticipating the improved connectivity between Canary Wharf, the City and Heathrow, recognised that London will have to bear the costs of the delay, but certainty and clarity are now needed on future dates and costs.

More positively, Martyn Saunders, the director for regeneration and spatial planning at real-estate advisory consultant GVA, informed that business values are already 30 per cent higher than forecast, with seven million square metres of development land being announced, of which Canary Wharf and Liverpool Street areas are the biggest. The retail area of Tottenham Court Road has been revitalised and the Museum of London at Smithfield has been expanded.

For outer London areas, the position is more complex but Stratford, Custom House and Abbey Wood are all expected to benefit. New affordable housing of around 23,000 units with a possible 42,000 additional jobs are anticipated, all on brown field sites.

Engineers install lighting above platform screen doors at Liverpool Street station.

Impact on airports Airport connectivity needs to be improved in order to to get more travellers using public transport, so said Chris Joyce, the head of surface access at Heathrow. The Elizabeth line is a key ingredient of this, bringing many more direct journey opportunities to Heathrow plus its easy interchanges for Gatwick and Luton at Farringdon. The longer-term interchange at Old Oak Common for HS2 will be important.

He asked why Crossrail does not link in to London City airport, when it is only 180 metres away, and maybe a station will be provided here if funding is made available.

For Heathrow, a western link to Reading and beyond, plus a southern access from Woking and Basingstoke, are seen as vital in lifting the public transport usage.

Line extensions Restricting the line to a terminus at Abbey Wood seemed short sighted, according to Paul Moore, the chief executive of the London Borough of Bexley, as this did little for strategic connectivity into Kent. The obvious extension would be to Ebbsfleet, where connections to HS1 would be achieved, with a further eight Crossrail stations in between. This was being developed as the C2E project (City to Europe,) for which a submission was being drawn up.

One of the challenges would be how to deal with an interface to the third rail 750V DC traction system when the Class 345s are not equipped for this and retro fitting would not be an option. A dual electrification system eastwards of Abbey Wood would be one solution, but quadrupling the existing line to give two tracks of 25kV is more likely to be favoured. Any solution has significant cost implications.

So why the delay?

John Crosfield, from AECOM but acting as the head of technical assurance for Crossrail, attempted to explain what had happened. The need for ‘dynamic assurance’ and thorough testing was essential if the central core is to open without any operational difficulties. This process is complex, even though it is restricted to only the central section, and needs full buy-in from the infrastructure manager and the operators.

Some design deficiencies have been found. An integration of all the design work has proved to be more difficult than anticipated, this being the prime reason for the delay. The goal of achieving a railway that is operationally reliable, is safe, is maintainable and can deliver the required performance, must be assured from Day One.

Elizabeth line trains at Old Oak Common depot.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

59

60

FEATURE Not all of this rang true with the assembled gathering and Crossrail admitted that the project did not contain any significant innovation. The tunnels and station facilities engineering had all been done before, the track was laid and being used by test trains, the trains were already in daily service on the Liverpool Street and Paddington outer routes and the signalling system was a well proven product on other metro railways.

Couple this to the fact that the Paddington to Abbey Wood section is essentially a self-contained railway, the testing and assurance process ought to be relatively straightforward.

The methodology being used for assurance appeared very bureaucratic and overly risk averse. Could there be other factors behind this enigma? Maybe there exists a lack of trained station staff and train crew and getting the necessary staffing levels agreed with the Unions?

If all is well on this front, what are the staff going to be doing for the next 12 months? This session left a degree of unease as to whether the reasons stated were entirely true.

Crossrail 2 The problems of the Elizabeth line have not helped the case for developing the Crossrail 2 scheme, so acknowledged Michèle Dix, the managing director for the project, but nonetheless the inexorable growth of London means that planning its future transport needs have to be faced.

The city’s population is expected to be 10.5 million by 2041, a 22 per cent increase from 2015, and significant congestion on London Underground’s Victoria, Jubilee, District and Northern lines and on South West routes into Waterloo will be experienced if nothing is done.

Fitting overhead catenary in westbound tunnel at Royal Oak portal.

The SW-NE corridor capacity increase is the reasoning behind Crossrail 2, which, when built, will ease congestion at several of the existing interchanges and will link around 800 stations with only one interchange. The line will basically connect Broxbourne on the GE line Cambridge route (and by implication Stansted Airport) to the Epsom, Chessington and Shepperton lines in SW London. The latter will complicate the electrification arrangements as this is 3rd Rail territory and dual voltage trains may become necessary. That’s not really a problem, as Thameslink already lives with this constraint.

Funding is crucial and ‘London’ will be expected to pay half. At a current estimate of £30 billion, it is acknowledged to be too expensive and ways of reducing the cost are urgently being investigated.

Savings in the engineering will be possible by using digital technology, optimised engagement with the supply chain and by manufacturing as much as possible off site.

The property value uplift is expected to be £87 billion, which might be tapped into along with private sector borrowing.

The route is expected to be finalised in 2019 with the early 2020s for a Hybrid Bill in Parliament, construction to start in the mid 2020s and an opening in 2030.

OLE installed above Elizabeth line heading down towards Pudding Mill Lane portal.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Network Rail interfacing Crossrail 2 will interface with, and may take over, some Network Rail lines.

Chris Curtis, the head of Crossrail 2 in Network Rail, said that lessons from the Elizabeth line and Thameslink are invaluable as it is not just about building an underground railway. To succeed, a joint team of Crossrail 2, Network Rail and the supply chain will be set up. The resources and skill base built up for Crossrail 1 are already being tapped into and the existence of the Tunnelling Academy is a vital asset that must not be lost.

The engineering of the line will follow standard practice but land space, utility diversion and access issues will always be challenging. The complication of three signalling systems experienced on the Elizabeth line will be avoided and it is expected that ETCS will be used throughout.

The standard methodology of risk, benchmarking, assurance and unified management will be used in the development of the service specification and the design for both operation and maintenance.

National Infrastructure implications Crossrail 2 is a big element of the National Infrastructure Commission’s plans for the whole of the UK, so said Greg McClymont from the NIC. Seen as a priority back in 2016, with a Hybrid Bill due by 2019, the project has clearly slipped, but continuance with Crossrail 2 was re-affirmed in 2018.

The funding has been set at £27.7 billion over the 2023 - 2036 period, which roughly aligns with the project plans.

However, many other projects come within the NIC portfolio - suburban railways, bus networks, cycling pathways to name but a few - with £43 billion being allocated for cities outside of London. The demands of others can be very vocal, and Crossrail 2 is not immune from funding competition.

FEATURE Getting the people Engineers are in short supply, particularly home-grown ones. Neil Robertson, the chief executive of the National Skills Academy for Rail (NSAR), told of the dominance of non-UK people in offshore wind turbine projects and the heavy reliance on overseas engineers for Crossrail 1. This situation could worsen if the wrong deal on Brexit results.

Overcoming the engineering deficiency is a challenge for everyone, and much is happening to recruit young people into the industry. However, ways of easing the present difficulties are there to be had, which include avoiding the stop/ start culture by having a long-term project rollout programme that ensures continuity of people, taking the right risks to avoid excessive design redundancy, use of digital technology wherever applicable and planning projects with a whole life asset management philosophy.

Overall impressions This seminar was inevitably overshadowed by the delay and cost increases associated with Crossrail 1, which was a pity as the importance of having fast cross-city rail links is vital to the business continuity of London.

The reasons for the delay to the opening of the Elizabeth line central core have to be taken with a degree of scepticism.

Yes, assurance and design finalisation are important, but for these to emerge as deficient with only four months before service introduction is hard to believe.

Maybe a postponement until early 2019 would have been accepted without too much comment, but a whole year?

The bad press from the timetable problems of Thameslink back in May, which incidentally had very little to do with the infrastructure or its engineering but was all about late timetable compilation and train crew rostering, may be a factor in declaring the delay so as ‘not to have this happen to us’.

That the Elizabeth line will be a success is not in doubt, and fortunately people have short memories. When the line is up and running, the troubles of 2018 will be forgotten.

Crossrail 2 must not be stigmatised as a result of the recent problems, but does it need to take so long when other European cities appear to build these types of links in a quicker timeframe?

Some may dispute this, but just look at the Paris RER network to see what can be achieved.

Bronze cladding installed at Farringdon eastern ticket hall.

Another factor, not really explored, is the impact of Brexit, whatever this may mean for the UK, London and major projects in general. It can only be hoped that the UK will ultimately benefit from Brexit, so that its impact will not negate the need for Crossrail 2. A subject for a further article in due course no doubt‌

Available from Mini to Mighty

Tame the Dust Generac Dust Suppression delivers sustainable performance in the most extreme environments www.towerlight.co.uk

+44(0)1270 445 777

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

61

62

FEATURE

MARK PHILLIPS

T

he final phase of the major investment by Network Rail to increase capacity on the routes in and out of London Waterloo station is nearing completion with the refurbishment and modification of the former Waterloo International Terminal (WIT), originally used by Eurostar trains but closed since November 2007 when the service was transferred to St. Pancras International.

The work is being project managed by the Wessex Capacity Alliance, a partnership of Network Rail, Skanska, AECOM, Colas Rail and Mott MacDonald.

During August 2017, Platforms 20 to 24 were put to temporary use for domestic services, but without the full functionality now being provided, to allow closure of Platforms 1 to 10 for the lengthening and reconstruction of Platforms 1 to 4 (issue 156, October 2017). After that temporary closure, Platform 20 remained in use for Windsor line services, but Platforms 21 to 24 were closed again to allow for the major works now nearing completion.

Work is taking place below, on and above these platforms with a complex mix of activities. The most apparent of these activities is the provision of a major new structure - the ‘infill’ roofing between the original station roof and the WIT roof. But, apart from this, there is modernisation of the platforms, repairs to the WIT roof, installation of lifts, escalators, stairways, ramps, emergency exits and gatelines, refurbishment of the ‘orchestra pit’, completion of the permanent features of the new link bridge and fitting of all mechanical and electrical services. That’s quite a list!

Infill roofing The design and finish of the ‘infill’ roofing has obviously been a major architectural challenge. The original station roof is a fairly conventional arrangement of main long-span trusses supporting smaller apex bays carrying the glazing. The WIT roof is an iconic structure in the form of three-pinned arches arranged at right angles to the track/ platforms.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The gap between the two roof structures arose as a result of the desire to develop and utilise the ‘orchestra pit’, of which more later.

The gap to be infilled is approximately 15 metres wide by 60 metres in extent.

The accepted design is a series of inverted triangular steel trusses, supported on two tall and tapering steel columns and also partially on the top member of the ‘gable-end’ truss roof structure. This arrangement is intended to hopefully blend the two roofs, but will, in reality, only be seen by those observers keen to look skywards with craned necks.

Externally viewed, however, planning stipulations by Lambeth Council required the infill to be in the form of a rectangular

FEATURE

box, being the outer and upper shell of glazing. This is what local residents in adjacent high-rise blocks of flats will see.

The ‘foundations’ for the new roofing supports required extending the steelwork down well below concourse level. The roof is supported by the original station masonry arch structures to the east (Platform 19), by the WIT structure in the centre, and on new foundations over the Waterloo & City lines to the west (Platform 24). The reuse of the existing structures around the London Underground control room had to be suitably tested and reinforced to withstand these new loads.

The roof infill was designed by the Wessex Capacity Alliance. The placing and fixing of the steelwork, which was fabricated by Bourne Steel, is being facilitated by a significant temporary steel structure, a kind of falsework (painted yellow for distinction - see photographs) and the ingenious use of a range of long reach mobile platforms for access to locate and bolt and/or weld connections.

Leading specialist building envelope contractor Prater is carrying out the glazing.

Passenger facilities and circulation The ‘orchestra pit’ referred to earlier is a development of the sunken area below the main concourse level, which was originally used as the Eurostar passenger waiting area. At the rear was the booking office and Eurostar offices/stores. At the front were the check-in, security and

passport controls. This whole sunken area has been enlarged by modification of the floor slab (more accurately, the platform support structure) to create a larger passenger circulation space - the Coleman Group carried out all the general demolition work, RGL Services the specialist hydrodemolition and the Kelly Group did all the new concrete works.

The creation of the ‘orchestra pit’ is key to the provision of great flexibility for passenger transfer and circulation.

For passengers wishing to gain access to the new platforms, either from any other platform or from concourse level, there is a new broad link bridge (constructed

by Kilnbridge) taking them straight to the new Platform 20/24 concourse with its gateline, train information boards and other services.

For those transferring to/from London Underground, there is a broad, new flight of steps from concourse level to the orchestra pit level and then three new escalators leading to the London

Underground subway level. And for those transferring directly between national rail services on Platforms 21/24, there are escalators between platform and orchestra pit levels.

There are also lifts between these levels, making use of old WIT lift shafts but with new equipment installed by Stannah Lifts, which is also providing two completely new lifts between the orchestra pit and LU subway levels.

At the foot of the island platform escalators, gatelines enable access/ egress directly to orchestra pit level and thence on through to LU subway level.

All of this new equipment and structural alterations, including the very imaginative development of the orchestra pit, will enable smooth and flexible passenger circulation while minimising any further congestion to the original main station concourse.

To facilitate direct access between Platforms 19 and Platform 20, a twosection ramp and a stairway have been

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

63

64

FEATURE Other works

provided. This is effectively a new island platform, but with one half at the original old station level and the other at WIT level. This is the only location where the new interface has had to be addressed in this way.

Platform alterations Some modifications to Platforms 20 to 24 have been necessary in putting them to their new use.

These platforms have been shortened by 50 metres at their country ends so as to accommodate a new switch and crossing layout, installation of which also necessitated major structural modifications of the viaduct beneath. This new layout gives the flexibility to operate a service of 20 trains per hour, compared to the five or six trains per hour in the time of Eurostar operation.

Add to this increase in trains per hour the fact that a fully occupied commuter train will have around 1,500-1,600 passengers aboard, wheras a Eurostar train has a capacity of 750 passengers, and it can readily be appreciated what a step change in capacity the WIT work is providing As well as being shortened at the country end, the London ends of Platforms 20 to 23 have also been shortened by 50 metres to create the passenger concourse area. Even with these length reductions, all the new platforms can take 12-car trains.

In the location vacated by the shortening of Platforms 20 to 23, a spacious 50-metre-long new concourse has been formed using a voided concrete slab with polystyrene infill.

Each new island platform (21/22 and 23/24) has new escalator wells and stairwells. All of these have required significant structural modification and reconstruction of the original platform slabs. Conversely, some platform openings from WIT days that are not now required have had to be structurally infilled. The works to modify various concrete structures are being carried out

by Kelly Formwork (UK).

Although the platform edges originally had tactile strips, these were not of the standard now required to warn visually impaired passengers of the edge risk.

Previously, passengers would only have had access to the platforms whilst a stationary Eurostar was already platformed. Now, they will be exposed to the greater hazard of moving trains. Therefore, all the coping slabs have been replaced with an integral tactile strip to the correct standard. Despite the platform shortenings, this work has still amounted to the placement of 1.5km. of new copings.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Rail Engineer was escorted on a route through the impressive catacombs, a network of major brick arches, beneath Waterloo station to view the works. Old WIT mechanical and electrical services are being stripped out and being replaced by new cabling and ducting for communications infrastructure, fire systems, public address, lighting and ventilation.

There are extensive plans for releasing large areas under the new platforms for retail uses by private developers. It is understood that this will commence soon after the current project to open the new platforms is completed.

Tiling of all walkway and concourse areas is ongoing and the finishes and parapets for the link bridge are being worked on.

The new platforms are scheduled to open for passenger use on 9 December.

This will provide immediate benefit to the operation of the station with the existing services. No doubt, when a new timetable comes into force next May, the full flexibility and capacity improvement gained from the new platforms will become even more apparent. The Southwestern train planners will have a major new asset, enabling them to diversify and improve the train service pattern optimally.

Prior to these capacity improvement works, Waterloo station was handling approximately 96 million passengers a year. After commissioning of the WIT platforms in their new role, which will be the final element of the overall project, that capacity will have been increased to 120 million passengers.

To achieve this, the cost of the change in use of the WIT platforms to their new future role is estimated at ÂŁ170 million.

That sounds like very good value.

ON-TRACK PLANT | POS SERVICES | SUB-CONTRACTING | LABOUR SOLUTIONS | PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Ready for action whatever the challenge We offer a broad range of services, supporting primary contractors across the UK with Network Rail, Crossrail and LUL projects.

•

On-track plant hire and POS services

•

Multi-disciplined labour provision

•

Sub-contract management and full project delivery services

With over 80 RRVs, a highly experienced team and a superior safety record, we can support with your next infrastructure, civils, permanent way or electrification project.

T 01962 711642

E info@totalrailsolutions.co.uk

W totalrailsolutions.co.uk

FEATURE

completion

Liverpool Lime Street

PAUL DARLINGTON

Lime Street cutting.

I

n September 2016 (issue 143), Rail Engineer reported on the development and the proposed designs for the extensive remodelling and resignalling of Liverpool Lime Street station. At the time, the project had not obtained all the required funding and was still subject to gaining all the necessary approvals and consents. Rail Engineer is now pleased to report that all the planned work has indeed taken place, and that the challenges have all been overcome to deliver a successful project.

Collaboration with all stakeholders, including several train operators, the City of Liverpool and other organisations in the North West, was key to negotiating and securing the required disruptive access. It stimulated the production of a comprehensive and detailed transport strategy, with which the project staging strategy aligned. It also identified works required to manage passenger flow during key blockades.

The strategy called for Liverpool to be ‘kept open for business’ during stages 2 and 5 of the project, with trains terminating at Liverpool South Parkway. It was also the catalyst for a bi-directional signalling solution in order to retain some services into Lime Street while the significant reconstruction work continued.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Modelling The need for the project was poor asset condition and the growing region - by 2043, the number of morning peak commuters is expected to double to more than 40,000 each day. Liverpool Lime Street is also a key part of the Northern Hub programme, which is a regulatory milestone for Network Rail.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

66

The scheme has delivered a capacity increase of three extra services per hour by creating two new platforms while extending Platform 10 to accommodate eleven-car units and Platforms 1 and 2 for eight car units (previously four car).

At the same time, Platforms 3 to 6 have been realigned to increase turnout speed and to provide safer, wider access for passengers.

All of the signalling has been renewed, with signalling control moved to the Manchester Rail Operating Centre (MROC).

This equates to a 100 signalling equivalent unit (SEU) renewal, which is a sizeable scheme.

Four kilometres of plain line track and 24 point ends have

FEATURE

Before.

After.

Hub and spoke The project was delivered using a hub and spoke arrangement, in which organisations build a successful procurement strategy by integrating all the elements that are responsible for the delivery. The central hub facilitates communications and collaboration between the

various spokes and manages the overall delivery strategy, providing sufficient process and assurance to enable effective working between spokes.

In this case, the ‘hub’ was led

by Network Rail IP Signalling, which was responsible for signalling, operational telecoms, electrification and plant (E&P) and SCADA works, supported by Network Rail IP Northern Programmes (civil engineering and station works).

Buckingham Group Contracting planned and delivered all worksite management for the delivery of the project, including the eight blockades to deliver each key stage. This included all the civil engineering, platform works,

South shed.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

been renewed, along with the associated overhead line equipment.

Building Information Management (BIM), video simulation, and 4D modelling have all been used extensively as part of the planning and implementation process, which included ‘virtual route learning’ for Stage 5 to highlight safety risks to workers during the construction and for stakeholder management. BIM modelling was invaluable in interdisciplinary design reviews, identifying potential clashes on site and obtaining accurate measurements within the constricted Lime Street cutting to inform equipment siting and elevated cable route position.

The model was used extensively for signal sighting and identified the requirement for several sighting screens.

This enabled the exact dimensions of the screens to be modelled for formal design and build, well in advance of the signals being installed and commissioned.

plus station electrical, CCTV and customer information systems. Buckingham was supported by Motion Rail, which supplied the station information and security systems, while PICOW Engineering Group undertook the mechanical and electrical works.

A separate principal contractor organisation (also via Buckingham) coordinated the safe interface of all site works as well as delivering and managing the project site establishment and welfare facilities. S&C North Alliance delivered track and overhead line work, with design by Amey Consulting. Siemens Rail Automation delivered all of the signalling control, E&P, SCADA and operational telecommunications.

Acting as subcontractors to Buckingham, SNC-Lavalin’s Atkins business delivered the detailed design for the track, the majority of the civil engineering inclusive of all platform re-modelling and all station electrical and telecoms works. Atkins also addressed the track and platform interfaces, together with providing the formal BIM coordination role, while Arcadis provided a specialist role in the design of the civils and

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

67

FEATURE

The platform layout before (left) and after. Note all sidings have been removed. excavation through sandstone rock together with infill of the former post office shaft tower and service tunnel. Some of the spoil was used to fill the voids, the remaining was removed from site by a combination of road and rail transport.

At the same time, the former Virgin Trains ticket office and waiting lounge buildings were carefully dismantled and placed in storage for future re-use.

The high level of ballast contamination in the Liverpool Lime Street station area, with asbestos and train discharge prominent in its make up, required safe removal and transportation to a waste facility. This was achieved successfully with no issues.

The new layout has provided five platforms on each side of the station, known as ‘North Shed’ and ‘South Shed’. Platform 10 (previously 9) has been extended from 246 to 267 metres. This is both to increase the number of platforms available for 11-car services from two to three and to increase the flexibility of train operations. Platforms 8, 9 and 10 have been resurfaced to match the newer paving in the North Shed, and all the platform coping edges have been changed to match the new track alignment.

The layout now allows trains using the slow lines to be predominantly routed to and from Platforms 1 to 5, while platforms 6 to 10 will serve the Fast lines. Departure speeds have been increased from 15 to 25 mph and the switches and crossings are now spaced further away from one another to enable independent tamping. The home signals are closer to the platforms ends and most platform-to-platform moves can be done under a main route, rather than as a shunt move.

New Mk3D fixed tension overhead line equipment (OLE) and new motorised operating switches have been provided to support the new track layout, but the proposal for motorised earthing switches for the OLE was removed from the scope of the scheme, as it was concluded the product was not sufficiently developed in time.

geotechnical interface for the OLE brackets required to support the new structures within the cutting and tunnels.

SPI, the creators of the virtual reality model, provided resources for 4D-modelling, model Integration within the hub team and produced the driver training video. Within Network Rail, the Signalling Design Group and Works Delivery organisations also delivered packages of work for the project, together with Babcock.

Starting position The platform layout was, and is, somewhat confusing so it is worth taking a moment to clarify it.

Looking from the city centre entrance into the station, prior to the re-modelling, platforms were numbered from left to right and from 1 to 9. Platforms 1 to 6 were used predominantly for local services with Platforms 7 to 9 for longer distance services and longer trains.

The wide bay that contained Platforms 1 and 2 had an additional stabling siding - ‘A’ - running in between the two platform-facing tracks. Similarly, the bay for Platforms 3 and 4 included siding ‘B’.

There were originally two sidings between Platforms 5 and 6 ‘C’ and ‘D’ - but siding C was removed in 1948. Platform 6 had quite a kink in it, which causes problems with signal sightings.

In the South Shed, what would logically be Platform 7 was, in fact, just siding ‘E’ - the support columns for the station roof, close to the platform edge, precluded it from being used for passengers. So Platform 7 was where one would expect to find Platform 8.

There was a wide space between Platform 7 and the last bay for Platforms 8 and 9. Formerly, this space was used for an access road, with a short bay platform at the top end protruding through a small bridge. This had also been removed, as had the bay on the far right that used to be Platforms 10 and 11. Since then, the space between platform faces 7 and 8 was used for waiting rooms and a redundant Post Office building.

Major changes Platform 1 has been taken out of use, which has allowed the remaining platforms to be lengthened to allow for a minimum of six-car trains. The original Platform 6 has been straightened to improve signal sighting and reclassified as Platform 5.

The project removed waiting rooms, left luggage facilities and the redundant post office mail handling building between the existing Platforms 7 and 8 to create two new platform faces. The post office building removal itself was a major exercise due to redundant machinery and asbestos. Demolished by Buckingham’s own internal demolition team, the process required extensive

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

68

Old trackside building.

69

Signalling changes The previous London, Midland & Scottish Railway Type 13 signalbox contained a 95-lever Westinghouse Brake & Signal Co Ltd Style ‘L’ miniature leaver frame, commissioned on 25 January 1948. It is being carefully removed and will be used to support the one remaining Style ‘L’ frame still operated by Network Rail, at Maidstone East. The signal box itself, located within the station throat and standing in a deep cutting, will be retained and may be reused for office space and storage.

New signalling equipment includes Frauscher wheel sensors, standard strength AWS (Automatic Warning System) magnets (permanent, electro and suppressed), TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) transmitters, LED signals and indicators, miniature banners, and ‘right away’ and ‘train ready to start’ switches. All the points operating equipment is in-bearer Clamp Locks (IBCL) with condition monitoring.

The signalling is connected via the telecommunication FTNx Internet-protocol (IP) transmission network to a single workstation in the MROC. Traditionally, remote signalling was controlled via a telecom point to point link with a diverse routed back up link, possibly via another telecoms service provider, to provide continuity of service in the event of a failure. With an IP packetbased telecom network, however, the data messages are broken into individual packets of information and routed around a mesh network of routers and links. In the event of cable or equipment failure, multiple paths are available for the packets. Once all the packets are received, the data message is reassembled with any missing or corrupt packets resent. This all takes place in a few milliseconds.

‘Lime Street Control’ is a signalling control method in operation at a number of terminal stations. It uses the configuration of the train detection system to check that a platform has sufficient length before allowing the protecting signal to clear. As the name suggests, it was first provided at Liverpool, as part of the resignalling of the station in 1948.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

FEATURE

New signals and extended platforms.

During detailed design, a decision was made for Liverpool Lime Street to be controlled from a single dedicated workstation. An assessment of signaller workload confirmed that Automatic Route Setting (ARS) was not required. This meant that the Lime Street Control could not be provided as part of the ARS and, therefore, Lime Street Control has been provided in a conventional manner within the interlocking.

With LED signals, the access requirements for maintenance are significantly reduced and, due to the limited clearances in the Lime Street cutting, ladders and walkways to the new signal gantries have not been installed. Instead, a tower work-platform scaffold from LOBO Systems has been provided, which can quickly be installed should access be required.

To further improve safe maintenance access into the cutting, a new access point has been created at Crown Street, midpoint between Lime Street and Edge Hill. However, the planned trackside lockout device systems have not been provided, PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

Manchester ROC workstation controlling Lime Street.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

70

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

FEATURE

Lime Street cutting.

New signals in cutting.

following a justification accepted by the Network Rail Safety Review Panel and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

Lockout devices have been provided for all the platforms.

One innovation introduced by the project were combined alphanumeric route indicators (CARI) from Variable Message Signs (VMS), a Hill and Smith business. These can be used as a replacement for both standard alphanumeric route indicators (SARI), which have to have a readability of up to 250 metres, and miniature alphanumeric route indicators (MARI), which have a reduced readable distance of 65 metres.

The new CARI indicators have been installed as ‘first of type’ at signals LL3067, LL5071 and LL9073 under a product acceptance trial certificate.

The re-control of the adjacent Edge Hill signal box to the Manchester ROC is now planned for 2019 and will be re-controlled onto the existing Liverpool (Huyton) workstation, leaving Lime Street with its own dedicated workstation.

Equipment locations The project team was tasked with finding space with safe, easy and maintainable access for equipment to be located on the surface. Six multi-discipline equipment compounds were identified - five of these were on redundant bridges and areas

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

of land above the cutting and were available for leaseback or purchase. The former bridge owners and tenants were, in general, pleased to help, so the inspection and maintenance of the structures, and the associated risk that may affect the operational railway, is now wholly in the control of the infrastructure manager. A sixth, multi-disciplinary equipment compound is situated on Liverpool Lime Street Platform 5.

Emergency spare cable ducts have been provided from the top of the cutting to track level.

These are fitted with a draw rope to allow a failed cable to be replaced quickly and safely without the need for an isolation and disruptive track access for a work platform.

At St Andrews Street, an equipment compound has been located behind a new St Andrews ‘The Bullring’ mural, as part of a curved security wall

around the compound. The original mural was unveiled

by HRH Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip in July 1989 and commemorates the life and times of people who lived in nearby St Andrews Gardens, which opened in 1935 under a city housing programme.

In the same area, the project also undertook voluntary works within the local Bronte Youth Centre, investing almost £40,000 in improving the facilities there for local people.

The equipment within the compound itself consists of the signal relocatable equipment building (REB), 650V signalling power supply, point-heating control, telecoms transmission, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) and junction lighting controls equipment.

Project stages A comprehensive staging strategy gave stakeholders confidence in the successful delivery of the project and allowed the possession access requirements to be demonstrated, justified and agreed.

The new crossover ladder at Crown Street was installed early in the project but not commissioned until later.

Likewise, switches and crossing units were installed at the entrance to the station to enable platform phasing in/ out during the lead up to final commissioning. Bringing the points into service in stages allowed the significant platform alteration works to be carried

FEATURE

Wall collapse On Tuesday 28 February 2018, a section of the wall above the cutting collapsed, sending 200 tonnes of debris across four lines in the deep cutting approaching Lime Street station. The cause was not associated with the Lime Street project - the ground above the cutting had been overloaded, pushing the wall out and onto the railway - and fortunately no one was hurt. Other Network Rail teams worked 24/7 to clear a total of 4,000 tonnes of debris and to repair damage to the track, signalling and overhead wires. The line reopened on 8 March.

The incident did not affect the project and, in fact, the opportunity was taken to deliver some work that had been planned to take place later in the year. This included demolishment of many old buildings near the station and installing several undertrack crossings from one side of the station to the other.

The second major phase of the station’s transformation was an eight-week (2 June 29 July 2018) blockade. This was known as stage 5, during which all station platforms were

Rubble on tracks.

OLE work in the cutting.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

out in a phased manner, which kept the overall blockade and station closure requirements to a minimum.

In October 2017, the bi-directional signalling system was installed and commissioned, which enabled trains to run in and out of Platforms 1 and 2 for much of the programme. For a number of smaller closures of Lime Street, and during the main blockades, long-distance trains terminated at Liverpool South Parkway with Merseyrail running additional services on the Northern Line to assist customers travelling to and from Liverpool.

remodelled, lengthened and widened to create additional space for longer trains and more passengers. The bidirectional signalling for trains running in and out of Platforms 1 and 2 was recommissioned and used for almost five weeks of the blockade. Full train services resumed at Liverpool Lime Street on Monday 30 July.

The existing Platform 1 was abandoned; enabling the existing Platforms 2 and 3 to be extended. The existing sidings within the platforms were recovered to enable wider platforms to be achieved.

A new Siemens Westlock interlocking was commissioned at MROC to control the Liverpool Lime Street area, with the control of signals and points via an IP-linked Westlock Trackside System (WTS).

During stage 5a, from 01:00 Saturday 2 June until 06:00 on Monday 11 June, Babcock, working for Siemens, installed temporary bidirectional signalling that would remain in service until the end of Stage 5b. Recovery of all trackside equipment was undertaken to facilitate track renewals.

Siemens also worked within the Manchester ROC to relocate the Huyton workstation in order

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

71

FEATURE to facilitate the installation of the new Lime Street workstation.

Stage 5b (06:00 Monday 11 June - 20:00 Friday 13 July) delivered the reconnection of the signalling following the track works. Siemens undertook significant installation and local testing of all the new signalling equipment during this time.

Stage 5c 20:00 Friday 13 July - 04:45 Monday 30 July was the fringe changeover stage with principles and wheels-free testing as all track works were now complete. Siemens carried out changeovers within Edge Hill relay room, including a power re-feed from a new supply point. Additional works to the Edge Hill signalling panel were also undertaken so as to reflect the Lime Street changes and fringe to the Manchester ROC. In total, stage 5 delivered: »» The new workstation at the ROC; »» One Westlock Interlocking; »» One power supply point »» Three combined alphanumeric route indicator signals (on); »» Six REBs containing new-technology Westlock Trackside System (WTS); »» 16 AWS magnets; »» 24 point ends; »» 38 TPWS transmitters; »» 84 Frauscher axle-counter heads; »» 85 new/altered signals (including 14 lightweight signals, eight on gantry, 10 off right away, nine miniature banner, nine ground position light signals); »» More than 120 signalling available routes; »» Over 135km of miscellaneous cable.

Some additional, final works took place on Sunday 2 September and Sunday 14 October with the new Platforms 1 and 2 in full passenger use. This now allows for the extra three services per hour in and out of Lime Street station, including new direct services to Scotland.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The rail industry sometimes has a poor reputation for delivering major projects, but the Lime Street remodelling was a complicated and significant project with many interfaces and risks. It has, however, been successfully delivered and has provided the opportunity to provide a much better layout to suit todays railway, and one that is maintainable, sustainable and is able to support the Northern Power House.

Thanks to Ian Fury and Claire Hulstone of Network Rail, Fergal Kiernan of Buckingham Group Contracting and James Davies of Siemens for their help with this article.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

Restricted line side access for equipment and staff.

PHOTO: MATTHEWNICHOLPHOTOGRAPHY

72

FEATURE

Multi-Disciplinary Rail construction services include: • Rail engineering; civil & structural engineering • Stations and Passenger Area construction and refurbishment • Platform construction and extensions • Permanent Way, Construction, Raising & Lowering • Bridge Structures & Retaining Walls, including Piling • Lineside Structures, Foundations, Culverts • Earthworks, Embankments & Cuttings • Embankment construction, stabilisation & protection • Railway track beds & ballast operations • Major re-signalling schemes • Troughing Route • Station car parks; at grade, decked & multi-storey • Depots & Trainwash facilities All Operations are undertaken under a full, Network Rail approved, Principal Contractors Licence (PCL) and all appropriate Link-Up product code registrations.

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

Learn more: www.geobrugg.com/slope

Structural Precast for Railways TECCO® SYSTEM3 made of high-tensile steel wire

SUSTAINABLE SLOPE PROTECTION

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

73

74

FEATURE

EU5T0N PHOTOGRAPHS: TONY FRESCHINI COLLECTION

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

T

ransport transforms - socially, economically, topographically. It also evolves, reflecting our changing needs. Crossrail - though mostly

underground - has made its mark on the capital’s landscape with ten unique stations, each conceived by different architects.

And soon HS2 will act as a catalyst for regeneration around Euston as the station embarks on its third life.

London’s first railway terminus has been at the heart of our transport system since passengers walked through the doors on 20 July 1837. But it’s the station’s second incarnation we’ll focus on here, marking the 50th anniversary of the Queen officially opening it on 14 October 1968. Costing £15 million, ‘New Euston’ was designed to cater for 20 million passengers annually; in 2016/17, 44 million used it. Few would have predicted such demand at a time when rail was in decline.

Back in the 1980s, Tony Freschini led the team credited with saving Ribblehead Viaduct on the majestic Settle-Carlisle line.

His railway career had taken him to Euston in 1966, serving as the project’s resident engineer from 1968-1970. Whilst there, he undertook an extramural course in Transport Studies at the University of London, which, in 1971, culminated in the preparation of a thesis entitled Euston Station: its function and method of operation.

What follows is a very condensed version of that paper, examining principal areas of the station. As you’ll observe, it sometimes reflects a very different time.

The parcels depot

Heavy parcels traffic has been a feature of Euston from its earliest days. The latest figures show that, during each four-weekly period in 1969/1970, an average of 2,160,000 packages were handled, although the depot has sufficient flexibility to handle almost double this number.

Outbound, all BR ordinary parcels and Red Star traffic is handled within the depot, together with SouthNorth transfers and a considerable proportion of the periodical traffic.

Newspapers are handled directly from the platforms. Post Office (PO) parcels post is delivered to, and handled within, the depot before being transhipped to the trains.

Virtually all of the inbound traffic passes through the depot, apart from the PO parcels post and letter mail which is taken through the main building basement area for direct transhipment by road to external PO sorting depots. Complete PO parcels trains are unloaded on the long bay - Platform 18 - permitting road vehicles to access both sides.

Red Star traffic normally consists of small consignments brought to the depot by the consignor for forwarding on a nominated train.

This has proved a very successful service, with the number of parcels forwarded from Euston having risen from 2,886 parcels in 1967 - the first week of the service - to about 8,500 per week average last year.

Resident Engineer Tony Freschini - then and now.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

FEATURE

Organisation and routing The parcels depot is situated on a concrete deck about nine acres in area and constructed some 30 feet above the platform and track areas. Its southern side is approximately 350 feet north of the main station buildings and spans the 15 passenger platforms, the parcels platforms and two sidings roads. The depot itself consists of a central raised area - roughly rectangular in shape - with a wide roadway traversing the perimeter and a loading/unloading dock for handling the various traffics.

There are two main ramps from the depot to platform level which are designed to facilitate the bulk transfer of parcels using wheeled trolleys - known as BRUTEs (British Rail Utilitarian Trolley Equipment) - coupled together to form trains hauled by tractor units.

The principal ramp serves Platforms 18-20, but access is also possible to the basement area of the main building, from which all of the platforms can be reached.

The second ramp gives direct access to Platforms 1-3, which can also be reached directly by road vehicles from Eversholt Street. Lifts are provided to serve individual pairs of platforms, suitable for carrying staff or a single trolley.

During the day, Platforms 1-3 are generally dedicated for passenger use; however at night considerable parcels traffic movements take place with Platform 1 being used extensively for outbound newspaper trains and inbound periodical traffic. PO parcels trains use Platforms 2/3.

Outgoing parcels are delivered to the northeast side of the depot, where they are offloaded manually, placed directly onto a ground-based conveyor system for transportation to the sorting area, then loaded onto the BRUTEs for despatch.

Incoming parcels are taken to the south side of the depot for sorting before going by road to their destinations.

(Above) Consruction of the station's west wing and underground car park.

Passenger traffic and facilities

via the eastern or western colonnades.

Access from the south is across the paved New Euston’s main building spans forecourt area situated above the car park. the area between Eversholt Street and From the Underground, the concourse Cardington Street - a distance of about is reached by means of a large escalator 600 feet. The nature of the station site situated centrally on the southern side. allowed the planners to adopt a functional The station is able to handle 50,000layout and the building is divided into 60,000 passengers per day, of which some the East wing, concourse, West wing, 20,000-22,000 arrivals and departures are basement service area and underground by main line and semi-fast services, and car park. about 8,500 by commuter services. Both To avoid the severe congestion between traffics have increased by around 50 per passenger and parcels traffics from which cent since electrification. the old station suffered, the designers On the north face of the concourse, a were commissioned to provide a layout large electro-mechanical train indicator that, as far as possible, enabled the two gives full details of train arrivals and traffics to be segregated. To accomplish departures. this, they raised the main passenger Access to the platforms is gained concourse 10 feet above the platforms; directly from the north side of this area, its chosen level being determined by the the section between the concourse and roof level of the London Transport (LT) the passenger ramps being termed the Underground station and the need to Passenger Dispersal area. This forms a provide sufficient headroom within the corridor about 30 feet wide, running Eastbasement area.

West through the main buildings.

Passengers arriving on foot approach the station from Eversholt Street and Melton Street respectively and enter (Below) A model of New Euston.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

75

76

FEATURE

East and West wings

Platform layout Prior to the reconstruction, the track layout often impaired the station’s operational flexibility due to the lack of platform space and suitable points and crossings. It was decided therefore to increase the number of platforms from 12 to 15 and remodel the permanent way for a distance of about one mile north of the platforms. Combined with the new signalling scheme, this has allowed the operators to path trains into the station more easily. »» Platforms 1, 2 and 3 cater generally for main line arrivals, with passengers entering the concourse via the narrow ramp from Platform 3. »» Platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7 cater for main line and semi-fast services, access to the concourse being via a wide ramp. »» Platforms 8, 9, 10 and 11 cater mainly for the outer suburban services, with tracks 9 and 10 also being fitted with DC rails for use by the local Watford service. »» Platforms 12-15 serve main line and semi fast services, with access provided by a ramp towards the northwest side of the concourse (Platforms 13-15 also cater for sleeping car services). »» Tracks 16 and 17 are normally used as stabling sidings. »» Platforms 18, 19 and 20 are used for parcel train services.

The East wing building is a three-story block containing the main catering facilities which presently consist of a restaurant, bar and small cafeteria/waiting room, with a selfservice tea bar in the eastern dispersal area. At first floor level is a more exclusive restaurant and small bar, as well as the Superloo area comprising superior toilet accommodation with baths and showers.

Currently, 220 catering staff are employed in the building and, on an average day, some 1,500 meals are served at concourse level and 400 at first floor level. A further 40 work in the basement, preparing food for the train restaurant services.

The West wing houses the general station facilities, the principal feature being the Travel Centre. This is a new concept, the main purpose of which is to offer passengers tickets, reservations and enquiries within one centrally located office. During an average week, 45,000 tickets are issued to main line destinations. All the ticket machines are mechanised using the Westinghouse multi-printer model.

All traffic movement outside the service roadway is by BRUTE trolley train and a dedicated route traverses the perimeter of the main building, passing beneath the service roadway, allowing all platforms to be served without interfering with road traffic.

The car park The station car park is beneath the forecourt at the southern side of the main building and is accessed via a ramp from Melton Street. Parking is controlled by National Car Parks on concession from BR. The old station had no provision for private parking and the designers were faced with the problem of how many cars to accommodate. A figure of 240 was initially agreed upon, with a view to expanding this in future if justified on economic grounds.

Parking charges provide a short waiting period of two hours for 2/- per hour, rising steeply to 30/- for the whole day.

A concession is made for passengers, amounting to a 50 per cent reduction. The parking area was opened in December 1968 and initially was not fully utilised; however, it has since gained steadily in popularity and is now frequently full.

Signal box The basement The basement service roadway runs the full length of the main buildings and is a minimum of 24 feet in width, although headroom restricts use to vehicles up to 13 feet 6 inches in height. A loading dock - which forms the roof of the LT Underground ticket office - is raised three feet above the roadway with 22 vehicle bays, two for newspapers and 20 for PO traffic.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

The new power signal box is located to the north of Platform 20 and plays an important part in the operational efficiency of the new terminal. It was built in conjunction with the station reconstruction scheme and was completed in 1965 at a cost of about £2 million. The box controls 2.5 miles of line from Euston-South Hampstead, a distance of 18 single-track miles comprising 488 signal routes.

FEATURE

Two signalmen are employed on each shift and use a push-button system located in a 25 feet long signalling console. the area controller supervises the operation, assisted by a train recorder, and each is provided with a telephone keyboard to enable them to contact all signal boxes, stations and depots, as well as train control.

An appraisal of the facilities In general, I consider that the new station functions well, allowing the various traffics to be handled efficiently. However certain parts could have been better designed and several working practices should be improved.

Having examined the handling of the parcels traffics, the main fault I observed arises from the provision of insufficient direct supervision of the operatives. The effect of this often gives rise to careless or occasionally very rough handling of the traffic. On many occasions, I observed parcels lying in the roadways having fallen from overloaded trolleys. Steps should be taken to ensure that the BRUTE drivers observe the specified 5mph speed limit and that the trains are limited to the recommended 12 trolleys.

In respect of passenger handling, it is my view that despite the great improvements made following the reconstruction work, Euston still requires additional works to enable it to fulfil its function as a major interchange terminal

to assist the flow of passengers between the various transport modes. However I consider the interchange facilities between rail and Underground services to be excellent and it is unlikely these could be improved.

The considerable east-west flow of passengers through the dispersal area to the toilets, left luggage lockers and the catering premises conflicts with the flows using the ramp to Platforms 1-3. The fact that the ramp is only about a sixth of the width of the others adds to the congestion.

(Above) Preparatory works for the concourse roof's insitu concrete support beams.

(Left, top) Road vehicle access to the basement from Eversholt Street.

(Left, inset) The first part of the underground car park roof and forecourt.

Premier Rail Services OUR SERVICES

RAIL EQUIPMENT HIRE

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

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

Fencing, Gates, Access Steps and Handrailing

Rail Dig Ramps

Site Clearance and Preparation / Tree Felling and Vegetation Clearing

Illuminated Safe Height Goalposts Temporary Pedestrian Access Steps

Ballast Retaining Walls / Debris Netting to Bridges

Track Way Mats Pedestrian/Vehicular/SAC’s

Carriageway Resurfacing / Verge Works

Temporary Site Fencing and Interlocking Road Barriers

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

Website: www.premier-rail.co.uk

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

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

77

78

FEATURE

A further problem arises from the lack of seating on the concourse, although belatedly some has been provided totalling about 90 - with a further 24 being placed near the central columns.

The main objection to providing more seating arises from the probability that they would be used by undesirables.

The postal facilities are poor, although a central postal suite has been provided within the concourse with two letterboxes and stamp machines. Telephone facilities are plentiful and well located.

A labour force of around 1,900 persons (including 142 train drivers, 42 guards and 53 conductor guards) is employed to run the normal activities of the terminal, with a three-shift system to cover the full working day. The direction and control of the labour force is undertaken by a team of four managers.

It should be noted that the salary of the station manager does not exceed £3,000 pa, and those of the principal assistants are less than £2,500.

(Below) Erecting a platform awning in front of the entry ramp to the parcels depot from Barnaby Street.

(Bottom) Constructing the reinforced concrete base slab for a Godwin Warren sliding bufferstop.

Future developments The numbers of passengers using the Outer Suburban services are sure to expand quickly as the towns between Watford and Northampton grow and the expansion of Northampton takes place, together with construction of the new city of Milton Keynes. Long-distance traffic is also expected to expand with the electrification of the line between Weaver Junction and Glasgow.

As a consequence, I believe that a further extension of many of the station facilities will be required during the next decade, although current platform capacity seems adequate to cope with foreseeable traffic growth.

Following completion of the reconstruction, BR has decided to retain the interdepartmental committee originally set up to plan and coordinate the development of the new station. At present, it is considering the pressing need to develop the two vacant sites south of the main building - currently utilised as temporary car parks - into an office block and hotel.

It is desirable that future commercial development should seek to compliment this, retaining the broad area at concourse level for the outward expansion of the passenger facilities if and when these are required.

Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Tony’s final two paragraphs allude to Euston’s greatest failing, one that has thankfully been recognised and rectified in subsequent station redevelopments: the need to fully exploit a site’s commercial potential to ensure maximum return on the investment.

On its official opening day, Michael Baily, The Times’ transport correspondent, remarked: “As a piece of urban planning, [New Euston] stands as a monument to ignorance and bureaucratic bungling.”

The problem stemmed from central and local government’s thwarting of British Railways’ plan to include shops and offices which would have soon paid for the station. Instead a financial blow was imparted costing BR - and the taxpayer - an estimated £4 million every year. And this squandered opportunity brought a social loss, too, as thousands of commuters were compelled to embark on secondary journeys to their places of work.

Baily went on: “With growing understanding and skills in transport/ land planning in bodies such as the Greater London Council, one would hope eventually at Euston, not for just a crude office-block-on-station such as British Railways originally proposed, but for a properly engineered transport centre with travelators, minibuses and the like running through, and a development complex incorporating the massive office, hotel, shopping and leisure facilities such a key site in the urban fabric justifies.”

Let’s hope we get it right next time.

Enter HS2.

3 -1 11

ST EA

F EN

E N U J

O

1 20

LA G

9

N D A

N RE

YOUR RAIL CIVILS SHOW

A

CA

LL

0 TO 153 BO 0 8 O 16 K 4

40

TWO MASSIVE SECTORS ONE HUGE OPPORTUNITY

PART OF

WWW.RAILWORX.CO.UK 3 full days of demonstrations with the widest choice of equipment on display.

Simple access to the venue off the A1, with over 20,000 parking spaces on site.

Meet potential customers with new opportunities in both the rail and construction markets.

The Rail Infrastructure, Plant & Equipment Show

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail) is the national railway system operator of Ireland. We operate all internal intercity, commuter and freight railway services in the Republic of Ireland, and, jointly with Northern Ireland Railways, the Enterprise service between Dublin and Belfast.

We are responsible for the construction and maintenance of all elements of the railway in Ireland.

Our Network extends to 1700 miles of track, over 4400 bridges, 970 level crossings, 372 platforms and 13 tunnels.

We have 33 miles of electrified railway and we plan to electrify a significant section of critical areas of the network.

At the same time we have major capital projects that we are embarking on and a total projected investment reaching into the billions of Euros.

This programme will increase capacity in the heavy rail network with expansion of the Dublin Area Transit system (DART). The DART expansion will include electrification, resignalling and adding tracks to branch lines.

We are driven by values that provide safe, customer focused journeys every day. We are one dedicated team. We believe in our people, we are proud of our past and passionate about our future.

ELECTRIFICATION MANAGER We have an exciting new opportunity for an experienced and knowledgeable Railway Electrification professional to be a part of our future.

We have 33 miles of electrified railway and we plan to electrify a significant section of critical areas of the network.

Purpose of the role The Electrification Manager is specifically accountable for the management of all aspects of the electrification business unit. You will be responsible to ensure that all electrification assets and systems are maintained in a safe manner for our operational railway and will also act as the Professional Head of the electrification discipline.

Experience Have you got extensive railway Electrification and Power Distribution experience?

Do you know how to deliver projects and maintenance regimes on an operational railway?

CHIEF ENGINEER SIGNALLING, ELECTRIFICATION & TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SET)

Are you a manager of others and someone who can be a true leader for the future?

Are you an innovator, that is dynamic and self-motivated?

If the answer to these questions is yes, we would like to talk to you.

We are able to put together a first class package, first class support and a first class team for you. Come and be part of our history and make a true difference to our railway for the future.

We require a dedicated and resourceful Chief Engineer to be involved in the most exciting period of growth for Irish Rail since its conception. Our Chief engineer will be involved in our strategic vision and committed project portfolio. We require a self-motivated, self-starting, resilient leader.

Our goal is to operate the safest, most efficient railway possible.

A safe and reliable today with a pioneering and efficient tomorrow.

We are looking for a leader with energy, drive, determination and focus!

If you have proven experience in the specification, maintenance, renewal and enhancements of Signalling, Electrification and/or Telecommunications, we want to talk to you.

Have you got proven experience managing major contracts and contractors, liaising with asset holders and driving change?

We require applicants with not just a high level of business acumen, but people that can influence policy and change. Our railway will be safe and secure but ultimately we need to deliver a first class service to all our customers.

Our vision is for Irish Rail to be the employer of choice and for this to happen we need to attract the very best to be part of our executive management team.

TO APPLY Fission Recruitment Services are working in partnership with Irish Rail to identify and support successful applicants into these career opportunities.

For more information and support, please contact Fission via email on irishrail@fission.co.uk or to discuss further please call +44 (0) 151 356 5610.

CAREERS

Examiner

North West of England

Competitive Salary dependant on Qualifications and Experience

As part of the Network Rail compliance you must be aged 18 or over and required to undergo Pre Medical and Drug and Alcohol screening.

• STE 4 Competent – Network Rail Competency • IRATA (Rope access Technician)

ed

• PTS and Safety Critical awareness • Must have experience in examination, inspection and subsequent report production to varying specifications

om

We are currently looking for STE4 examiners to undertake structural inspections, leading a small inspections team, and to produce inspection reports to a high standard ensuring that all works are undertaken safely and in accordance with XEIAD Policies and Procedures.

Requirements

N Ex or am Ap th pl W ine y rs e to ca st o a re f E lso er s@ ng re xe q iad lan d uir .c

XEIAD is a Civil Engineering Consultancy specialising in difficult access inspections of the Rail and Highway infrastructure with offices based in Derbyshire, Bristol and Devon.

• IT Literate including Microsoft Office • Full driving licence • COSS – Controller of Site Safety (desirable) • Confined Space High risk (desirable)

Tr ai ne e

82

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

01525 211658

careers@xeiad.com

Boost your career prospects

Search RailwayPeople.com for 1000s of exciting new opportunities online

Update your CV and profile today

THE JOB LARG SIT EST E IN DED THE ICAT WO ED R RLD AIL way People.com Rail Engineer | Issue 169 | November 2018

Are you an experienced Rail Professional looking for a new career opportunity?

At Colas Rail UK we work on some of the most exciting projects to keep the nation moving with operations spread across three divisions, Rail Services, Infrastructure and Urban.

From turnkey multi-disciplinary projects, rail and tram track-laying, track renewal, track electrification, safety systems, telecoms and civil engineering to freight, plant and machinery operations - the opportunities are vast.

We are always on the lookout for talented people to join us and welcome applications from keen, motivated and enthusiastic people, who relish responsibility and who are looking for an exciting and challenging career.

In return we offer exceptional career progression and support and encourage continued personal development. If you believe you have the skills to contribute to our future success, then we want to hear from you.

Opportunities in Rugby and across the UK » Project Manager - Technical

» Fitter / Maintainer Operatives x 10

» Technical Support Engineer (Mechanical)

» Trainer / Assessor

» Technical Support Engineer (Electrical)

» Materials & Procurement Manager

» Warranty / Quality Engineer

» Grinding Supervisor

» Goods Inwards Inspector

» Maintenance Supervisors

» Driver / Route Conductors x 4

» Freight Train Driver

» Cost Analyst

» Groundstaff

» Team Organiser

» Driver / Operator

» Planning & Rostering Co-ordinator

» Route and Competency Manager

If you have necessary skills and are ready for your next big adventure, then this could be a great opportunity for you.

We offer an attractive salary and benefits with a culture of can do, empowerment and flexibility, to allow you to make a real difference.

Please register your interest by sending your CV to recruitment@colasrail.com and we will provide you with further information.

We are waiting to hear from you.

www.colasrailcareers.co.uk

Velaro Novo It’s time to rethink velocity Discover a train that offers a whole new perspective on high-speed and intercity transportation. 30% lower energy consumption,10% more available space and lower maintenance costs: these and many other benefits make the Velaro Novo unique when it comes to increasing value sustainably over the entire lifecycle and enhanced passenger experience. siemens.com/velaro-novo