Our parent companies are leading railway infrastructure specialists.
Together we continue to invest in cutting edge on-track machines which improve safety, reliability and e ciency.
July 2020 DEADLINE - 15 May 2020 October 2020 DEADLINE - 15 August 2020 January 2021 DEADLINE - 15 November 2020 April 2021 DEADLINE - 15 February 2021
Please send to Kerrie Illsley Designer & Journal Production Editor journaleditor@thepwi.org
Please send your enquiry to Kate Hatwell Operations Director kate.hatwell@thepwi.org
PWI Central, PO Box 12890, Brentwood, CM14 9RY +44 1277 230 031 www.thepwi.org secretary@thepwi.org
PLEASE NOTE: Every care is taken in the preparation of this publication, but the PWI cannot be held responsible for the claims of contributors nor for the accuracy of the contents, or any consequence thereof.
#thepwi thepwi.org
PermanentWayInstitution @PermWayInstit
Permanent Way Institution @the_pwi
It’s been a real pleasure to receive such wonderful feedback over the new Journal style. Thank you to all those who sent in their comments.
As always, please contact me if you have any news, both personal and professional, that you’d like us to broadcast in the next edition. It’s great to share the good stuff!
Here’s to a safe Summer and keep #handwashing
Illsley Marketing Assistant, Designer & Journal Production Editor kerrie.illsley @thepwi.org
As I scribe this introductory piece for the Journal we are in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic. It’s a very worrying time for everyone and we all have a responsibility to follow the Government guidelines and do our best to help the NHS and all those undertaking essential work. I remind myself that our most important values are around “community and fraternity” and am certain the Sections are reaching out to their members to see if they can offer any kind of assistance. Looking out for each other is now a top priority. The team are also doing their best to continue with planned workstreams.
Thank you very much for the feedback on the new look Journal that was published in January. The overwhelming majority of recipients have given it nothing but high praise; all credit goes to our Journal Production Editor Kerrie Ilsley for her creative thinking and ideas, and ability to translate these into an appealing presentational style.
We hosted our bi-annual Section Secretaries’ meeting on 24 January at the Burlington Hotel in Birmingham. It was almost a full team turnout with a few Sections represented by their Vice President. A special welcome was offered to Timothy Atkinson, Jaydan Manyan and Mark Woollacott, all newcomers to the group. Timothy has taken over as Section Secretary of the Birmingham Section from Richard Quigley. He is a Network Rail employee who completed his graduate training scheme with the RAM team based in Birmingham and has subsequently secured a position in the Sandwell & Dudley Depot working as a Principal Technical Officer. Similarly, the Milton Keynes Section was represented by Jaydan who is their Deputy Section Secretary working under the guidance of Kevin Thurlow. Jaydan joined Network Rail in 2015 as a graduate and is currently working within STED. He gained his Engineering Technician registration with the PWI in April 2019. Finally, I must give a special mention to Mark who is an absolute credit to our Institution. Last summer, Mark decided to start a Section in Exeter and they had their inaugural meeting in November. It is so wonderful to see the next generation of Rail engineers actively participating in their local Sections and influencing the broader agenda of the PWI.
The meeting itself was very purposeful, the CEO and Operations Director gave a summary view of performance in 2019 and set out a clear plan for the year ahead. The Sections understand where and how they fit in and what they are required to do.
There are two critical projects this year, the first of these is the development and launch of the new website and the second is a focus on growing individual membership. We had a lengthy discussion on the need to strengthen our relationships with certain universities as they present a golden opportunity for encouraging new members. Our recent membership of the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) will also assist in this regard, as this is the organisation that accredits degrees in civil, structural and highway engineering.
Setting objectives for the year ahead is very important and I find the early part of the new year a good time for self reflection as a means of helping to devise a plan for what’s next. I do my best to produce a Development Action Plan every year and consider the CPD activity that will support the areas I have chosen. From a technical perspective this year, I have enrolled on the Track Engineering Diploma offered by the PWI. I recognise I have gaps in my knowledge on Track maintenance, design and asset management and I’m confident this diploma will help me. As professional Engineers we have an individual responsibility to maintain relevant CPD in order to demonstrate the sufficient breadth and depth of knowledge expected of a practicing engineer.
In addition to the formal training courses on offer, the PWI are offering some fabulous events in the next 12 months, recognising dates are subject to change given the current circumstance. Technical seminar topics include:
• A third conference on the subject of OLE
• A half day seminar on various aspects of Safety with particular focus on Track Worker Safety
• A seminar dedicated to Plant
• The conferences run by Network Rail with the PWI in full support.
Alongside these events we have a full calendar of Section meetings, which have recently moved to an online format, so I am optimistic there is something that appeals to everyone within the membership and beyond.
Joan Heery PRESIDENT
By devising solutions that meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, we’re helping to deliver a resilient rail network that puts passenger and freight needs first for years to come.
mottmac.com
Andy Packham Technical Content Manager andy.packham@ thepwi.org
VICE PRESIDENT Andy Packham andy.packham@thepwi.org
BIRMINGHAM SECRETARY
Timothy Atkinson timothy.atkinson@networkrail.co.uk 07701 057017
MILTON KEYNES SECRETARY
Kevin Thurlow kevin.thurlow@networkrail.co.uk 07802 890299
NOTTINGHAM & DERBY SECRETARY
John Garlick jgees01@btinternet.com 07532 071727
VICE PRESIDENT Pat Watchorn pat.watchorn@irishrail.ie
IRELAND SECRETARY
Joe Walsh pwiirishsection@gmail.com 00 353 872075688
VICE PRESIDENT Phil Kirkland philkirkland@btinternet.com
NORTH EAST SECRETARY
Phil Kirkland philkirkland@btinternet.com 07899 733276
WEST YORKSHIRE SECRETARY Martin Wooff pwi@daelnet.co.uk 07487 652622
YORK SECRETARY
Gareth Dennis york@thepwi.org 07951 918236
VICE PRESIDENT Roy Hickman royhickman@live.co.uk
CHESHIRE & NORTH WALES SECRETARIES
Lynne Garner lynnegarner79@icloud.com 07494 753652
Alastair Roberts a.roberts@aegis-cert.co.uk 07768 210480
LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE SECRETARY
Philip Benzie p.benzie@yahoo.co.uk 01704 896924
MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL SECRETARY
Richard Wells richard.wells@tonygee.com 07817 302652
VICE PRESIDENT TBA
EDINBURGH SECRETARY
Mark Taylor marktaylor5@networkrail.co.uk 07710 959630
GLASGOW SECRETARY
Jim Watson glasgow@thepwi.org 07590 929107
Paul Ebbutt Professional Development Officer (South) developmentofficer south@thepwi.org 07887 628298
Andy Steele Technical Content Manager andy.steele@ thepwi.org
Brian Parkinson Professional Development Officer (North) developmentofficer north@thepwi.org 07876 578905
VICE PRESIDENT Paul Ebbutt paulebbutt1@gmail.com
CROYDON & BRIGHTON SECRETARY Colin White c.white@chaucerrail.co.uk 07845 316042
LONDON SECRETARY Thomas Utley thomasutley@tfl.gov.uk 07885 732231
SOUTH & WEST WALES SECRETARY Andrew Wilson southandwestwales@thepwi.org 07974 809639
THAMES VALLEY SECRETARY Richard Antliff richard.antliff@gmail.com 07804 329497
WESSEX SECRETARY Kenneth Newell kenneth.newell@btinternet.com 07771 668044
WEST OF ENGLAND SECRETARY Constantin Ciobanu western@thepwi.org 07549 319335
EXETER Mark Woollacott Mark.woollacott@networkrail.co.uk 07920 509011
BENGALURU SECRETARY Srinagesh Rao sringagesh.rao@arcadis.com
MALAYSIA Mr K Sukumaran sukumaran@ktmb.com.my
NEW SOUTH WALES Peter Boonstra secretary@pwinsw.org.au
QUEENSLAND Robin Stevens robin.stevens@qr.com.au
SOUTH AFRICA Callie Herselman callie.herselman@transnet.net
SOUTH AUSTRALIA Mark Pronk mark.pronk@sa.gov.au
Liz Turner Registration Manager profeng@thepwi.org Brian Counter Technical Director technicaldirector@ thepwi.org
COVID-19 - As we go to press, the country is working to minimise the harm caused by this virus whilst maintaining critical food production and keeping supply chains open. The rail industry is playing a major role, providing transport for key workers and freight: I’m sure that PWI members will be proud of our industry’s response, and join me in saying Thank You to members who are keeping the trains running reliably and safely, and to those who have volunteered in any capacity to help the country deal with this unprecedented emergency.
ON-LINE VISIBILITY - The first quarter of 2020 has seen the Institution working hard to achieve a step change in its social media profile. Especial thanks to those of you who’ve contributed to discussion and debate within our Linkedin (PWI Tech Talk), Facebook (PermanentWayInstitution), and Instagram (the_pwi) groups, and to Michelle who’s produced our Social Media workshop (link below) to help PWI members make good use of the systems. The Covid-19 emergency has brought the online world up close and personal to everyone involved in infrastructure engineering, however reluctantly! We will enter 2021 as a community that is much more familiar with the tools of online communication. The PWI will use this near instant, multi-lateral communication capability to better share (in text, images, and voice) questions, answers, achievements - whether team or personal, and our specialist technical knowledge and understanding: a principal objective of our Institution.
GROWTH - You’ll read elsewhere in the Journal that 2019 was another cracking year for the Institution. Growth in all classes of membership and a significant expansion in activity is a mark of success and a tribute to the many volunteers who have committed to modernising the PWI and keeping it relevant to all those working on today’s railway infrastructure.
Rail infrastructure technology marches on relentlessly and it’s very important that the level of understanding within the industry keeps pace, so that infrastructure engineers can exploit the widest range of technical developments to make our railways ever safer and more affordable. Our Institution provides a wide variety of formal and informal opportunities to learn, and growth is a key indicator that people working on railway infrastructure are taking up the opportunity and challenge of CPD. Long may that continue, and grow…
ENGINEERING INSTITUTIONS – WORKING TOGETHER - Early in 2020 I attended a National Engineering Policy Centre workshop, run jointly by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) and the collective of professional engineering institutions (PEIs), of which the PWI is one. We looked at how PEIs can work together in a well-coordinated way to speak effectively and with a unified voice for UK engineering. Progress has already been made: in Autumn 2019 a set of national engineering policy objectives was agreed and published (https://www.raeng.org.uk/priorities); and a jointly endorsed letter was sent to the new prime minister shortly after the December election, reinforcing the importance of engineering capability and output to the UK’s economy and future prosperity. However, in an environment where government faces multiple challenges and opportunities, it will be important to maintain a high profile for engineering and informed engineering advice and, to this end, the PEIs committed to continued joint action with RAEng.
ENGINEERING AND CLIMATE CHANGE - In the second half of the workshop we looked at the engineering and social challenges implicit in the Climate Change Act 2008, and the targets set by our government in 2019 committing the UK to net zero emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2050. The discussion was informed by the report Absolute Zero (https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/) produced by UK FIRES, a research programme sponsored by the UK government.
The report acknowledges that the UK government’s position is underpinned by sound climate science and that new or “breakthrough” technologies are not sufficiently developed to play any substantive role in delivering the 2050 net zero emissions objective. It looks in detail at the requirements and consequences of achieving zero emissions by 2050 using today’s technologies. The report draws on a wide swathe of detailed research and analysis, reaching two central conclusions: a required reduction in energy usage to 60% of today’s levels can be achieved by 2050; and (other than for flying, shipping, and cement manufacture) established technologies can enable the changes required.
“Electrification” of the economy is identified as the primary mechanism for delivering zero emissions, with all electricity generated from emissions-free sources. The report foresees the (perhaps temporary) end of air travel by 2050 - replaced largely by electrified rail transport, and of sea-borne freight - replaced by overland rail haulage. Neither the social impact of de-carbonisation nor its engineering challenges are underestimated, both are accentuated by the narrow 30-year delivery window. The need for engineers and social scientists to work closely together in this area is obvious.
The Covid-19 emergency neither invalidates nor dilutes the challenges of climate change: so we must deal with two simultaneous emergencies, albeit against different time horizons. Absolute Zero is a great CPD read. It’s also a spur to railway infrastructure engineers to consider how to further reduce our industry’s requirement for fossil fuels in the short, medium and long terms.
John Stephen BarberWe’re honoured to have you on board and are thoroughly looking forward to working with you.
We’ll keep you updated on news and events via our monthly newsletter as we don’t want you to miss a thing. We have a thriving social media network and we’d love to see you get involved! We’re here to help, so if you have any questions, then shout out!
Bengaluru - Shivyogi Hiremath, Naveen Kumar Bandaru
Birmingham - Callum Nicolson, Steven Caws, James Preston, Michael Byng, Lucas Cunningham, William Peters, Miles Sanders, Eugene Shields, James Lee, Tsz Hin Wilson Chan, Brenda Tham, Thomas Hurst, Eugene O’Sullivan
Cheshire & North Wales Llangollen Railway, Sean McCarthy, Paul Brown, Oscar Hutchinson, William Mainwaring
Croydon & Brighton - Jehmel Brown, Nicholas Tompkin, Marta Neves, Mafuta Papitsho Sanduku, Tina Poleon, Susan McCree
Edinburgh - Kaitai Dong, Ademolu Richard, Dachi Khutsishvili, Dimitrios Papadimitriou, Euan Greenwood, Robert Lombard, Jamie Boyle, Scott Sloan
Exeter - John Clist, Jason Williams, Timothy Lewis, Mark Reeder, Andrew Stone, David Campbell
Glasgow - Daniel McDermott, Ian Stanworth, Patrick Dolan, Neil Wightman, Brian Leyden, Calum Knox, Angus MacGregor
International - Vijay Amirtharaj Dhanaraj, Daniel Cox
Irish - Noel Clarke, Stephen Lavery
Lancaster, Barrow & CarlisleOliver Streatfeild
London - Theo Johnson, John White, Danny Whitworth, Thomas Johnstone, Cameron Nice-Crick, Jack Coles, Matthew Adams, Jesus Aguilar Serrano, Alexander Ross, Luke Groves, Maria Cassidy, Amer Ali, Mike Wakeford, Burhan Abdal Enus, Paul Carter, Jeff Chapman, Jordanna Mills, Lee Herron, Michael Lucas, Alexander Hamilton, Gary Russell, Philip Jeyes, Joseph Jamieson,
Richard Dunn, Ivan Dowman, Raqueeb Samatou, Jaquinn Clement, Matt Davidson, Jamie Brown
Manchester & LiverpoolNatasha Hibbert, Christopher Kays, Bradley Robinson, Bryne Jennings, William Clark, Michael Pike, Adam Marcroft, Clifford Ogan, Andrew Sharrock, Jamie Walsh, Richard D’Rozario, George Aspden, James Mault, Alex Torevell, Andy Roberts, Jessica Lea
Milton Keynes - Gifty Koomson, Stephen Kermez
North East - Rod Farrow, Devon Rudd, Jake Garnett, Jacob Lowes, Robbie Anderson-Newman, John Nelson, Aaron Davison, Logan Pye, Jack O’Kane, Jack Rutherford, Victoria Johnstone, Jessica Gregory, Kenneth Sowerby, Robert Frey, Matthew Beaumont, Robert Killala, Steven Ormston, Doryan Herbut, Liam Brown, Gavin Dickson, Emily Bell, Carl Isaacson, Amber Smith, Mark Henderson
Nottingham & Derby - Marcin Kulas, John Allsop, Albert Degraft-Johnson, Danny Egan, Elliot Chasselon
South & West Wales - Hannah Team, Samuel Orphan
Thames Valley - Owen Harriss, Carl Shillito
Wessex - Daniel Mullan, Fred Worger, Luciano Di Fazio, Josh Carter, Thelevina Quarcoo
West of England - Darren Stradling, Francis Lopata, Stewart Richards, Seadna O Brien, Jack Barnes
West Yorkshire - Ross Lawman, John David Willis, Danny Lane, David Connolly, Barclay O’Malley
York - Robert Marshall, Ryan Hughes, Mark Spreadbury, Kingsley Ukabiala, Rachel Braid, Robert Clark, Craig Bottomley
Goran Begonja – Manchester & Liverpool
Sana Wajid – Milton Keynes
Alistair Kennedy – Nottingham & Derby
Matthew Brett - West of England
Dr Amer Ali – London
Dr David Connolly - West Yorkshire
James Cronje - London
Apprentice,
Member £82.00
The Permanent Way Institution exists purely for the world of rail infrastructure engineering.
We provide our members with a unique forum to share and gain knowledge, experience and competency together.
Join to learn, grow and engage with us. The PWI membership form is available to download from the website. This way, you have it at your disposal to introduce any friends, family or colleagues to the PWI who you think might be interested in joining.
Remember, we are an inclusive Institution which means we welcome anyone to join us who is interested in rail. From track professionals to train enthusiasts, we are a community of like-minded individuals who love to think, talk and learn about engineering in this field.
If you know someone like that who is not already a member, please encourage them to join us. 2020 is all about growing our community, and we would love you to be involved in that.
PWI ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP £82 RECEIVE 4 ISSUES OF THE PWI JOURNAL ANNUALLY (£15.00 PER ISSUE FOR NON MEMBERS)
www.thepwi.org/account/register/
You can pay your subscription by Direct Debit through a UK bank account and this can be set up on our website when you renew your membership.
You can also pay your subscription by credit / debit card via our website or by phoning the Registered Office on: (+44) 01277 230031 (option 1)
We can accept BACS payments to the PWI bank account: Account number 50712051 / Sort code 20 07 89
From overseas: IBAN GB05 BUKB 2007 8950 7120 51 SWIFTBIC – BUKBGB22
From a European account: IBAN GB78 BUKB 2007 8989 4214 00 SWIFTBIC - BUKBGB22
Please ensure that you add your full name and / or membership number as a reference if making a bank transfer and send an email to the Secretary.
If PWI membership is directly relevant to your employment and you pay your own subscription, you can claim tax relief on that subscription.
You can find more detail at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/professional-bodies-approved-for-tax-relieflist-3. Unfortunately, you must organise this yourself, but it can significantly reduce the cost to you, whilst the PWI still benefits from the full amount.
Members aged 80 years or over do not pay subscriptions, so please notify the Secretary if you qualify as not all longer serving members’ dates of birth are known.
Rates of subscription payable by members of the Overseas Sections are fixed by, and payable to, the Section concerned. The NPS rate reflects the charges that are now being made to the PWI by companies collecting the subscriptions. The member subscription is £1.90 per week (£98.80 a year) and the Fellow subscription is £2.55 per week (£132.60 a year).
5 May
SECTION MEETING - WESSEX. The Challenges of the Section Track Maintenance Engineer (Speaker TBC). Network Rail, Basingstoke Campus, Gresley Road, Basingstoke, RG21 4FS
6 May
SECTION MEETING - THAMES VALLEY. Kings Cross remodelling (John Hilliard, Assoc. Director, Engineering Integration Ltd). Network Rail’s Davidson House Offices, Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading, RG1 3EU
7 May
SECTION MEETING - CHESHIRE & NORTH WALES. Timetable Planning (Rob Cummings, Seasonal Performance Improvement Manager, Northern Rail). Crewe Arms Hotel, Nantwich Road, Crewe, Cheshire, CW2 6DN
7 May
SECTION MEETING - EDINBURGH. Kintore New Station & A2i Update (Robert McCafferty,
Technical Head of Track, BAM Nuttall). Upstairs Function Room, The Scots Guards Club, 2 Clifton Terrace, Opposite Haymarket Station, Edinburgh, EH12 5DR
7 May
SECTION MEETING - MILTON KEYNES Slab Track Replacement St. Pancras to West Hampstead (Frances Johnson, Project Manager & Thomas Flowers, Senior Project Engineer, IP Network Rail) & PWI Presidential Visit (Joan Heery, President, PWI). Auditorium, The Quadrant, Network Rail, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1EN
11 May
SECTION MEETING - SOUTH & WEST WALES. Tram Train (Tim Kendell). Network Rail’s Offices, St. Patrick’s House, Curran Road, off Penarth Road, Cardiff, CF10 5ZA
11-13 May
TRAINING - PWI TRACK ENGINEERING DIPLOMA. MODULE 3. (See page 72)
13 May
SECTION MEETING - EXETER. Diversity and Inclusion (Sophie Fardell-Rudd, Network Rail). Network Rail Ltd, Training Room, Central Station Buildings, Queen Street, Exeter, EX4 3SB
14 May
SECTION MEETING - CROYDON & BRIGHTON. RAIB (Mark Young, Human Factors Specialist, RAIB). Mott MacDonald House, Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE 15 May
JOURNAL
-
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN. Mental Health Awareness Week - See next page
20 May
TECHNICAL VISIT - GLASGOW. Technical Visit to The Bo’ness & Kinneil Railway. The Bo’ness & Kinneil Railway, Bo’ness Station, Union St, Bo’ness, EH51 9AQ
20 May
SECTION MEETING - WEST OF ENGLAND. Steventon Bridge: Intelligent Rule Breaking using Dynamic FEA Techniques (Garry Keenor, Group Engineer, Electrification, SNC LavalinAtkins). Engine Room, Atkins, 5th Floor Milford House, 1 Milford Street, Swindon, SN1 1DW
21 May
SECTION MEETING - MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL. OLE and Track Interface (Martin O’Connor). Manchester Metropolitan University, Room E0.05, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD
21 May
SECTION MEETING - NOTTINGHAM & DERBY. Cost effective electrification mast foundation design (Professor William Powrie, Faculty of Engineering & Environment, University of Southampton). Aston Court Hotel, Midland Road, Derby, DE1 2SL
2 June
SECTION MEETING - WESSEX. Railway Research: Latest Developments (Prof. William Powrie, University of Southampton). Eastleigh Railway Institute, 2 Romsey Road, Eastleigh, Southampton, SO50 9FE
3 June
SECTION MEETING - THAMES VALLEY. The Role of Transport for Wales (Alan Whiston, Senior Asset Engineer for Track, Off-Track and Earthworks, TfW). Network Rail’s Davidson House Offices, Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading, RG1 3EU
4 June
SECTION MEETING - CHESHIRE & NORTH WALES. Design & Construction of Wigan Springs Branch Traincare Depot (Richard Thornton, VolkerRail & Les Fox, Atkins). Crewe Arms Hotel, Nantwich Road, Crewe, Cheshire, CW2 6DN
4 June
SECTION MEETING – MILTON KEYNES. Geotechnical Talk (Clare Brint, Route Asset Manager (Geotechnics), Eastern Region Network Rail). Auditorium, The Quadrant, Network Rail, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1EN
5 June
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN. World Environment Day - See next page for details of how to get involved
8 June
SECTION MEETING - LONDON. Crossrail 2 (Chris Curtis & Mike Dyson). Transport for London, Ground Floor, Palestra House, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ
8-11 June
TRAINING - PWI TRACK ENGINEERING DIPLOMA. MODULE 1. (See page 72)
9 June
SECTION MEETING - NORTH EAST. Edinburgh to Glasgow Electrification (Mark Churchill, Principle OLE Engineer, Amey Consulting). Newcastle College Rail Academy, William Street, Felling, Gateshead, NE10 0JP
13 June
SOCIAL EVENT. Annual Intersection Quiz - with teams taking part from Edinburgh, Manchester & Liverpool, Lancaster, Barrow & Carlisle, North East, Cheshire & North Wales and Glasgow Sections. County Hotel, 9 Botchergate, Carlisle CA1 1QP
17 June
SECTION MEETING - EXETER. GaugingWestern Works Delivery Achievements (James Grant, Senior Technical Officer, Network Rail). Network Rail Ltd, Training Room, Central Station Buildings, Queen Street, Exeter, EX4 3SB
18 June
SECTION MEETING - MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL. Maintenance (Danny Teece and Jeff Pearson, Network Rail). Manchester Metropolitan University, Room E0.05, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD
22 June
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN. Rail Safety WeekSee next page for details of how to get involved
15
SECTION MEETING - EXETER. The good old days! A look at safety (Mark Woollacott, Project Engineer, Network Rail). Network Rail Ltd, Training Room, Central Station Buildings, Queen Street, Exeter, EX4 3SB
16 July
SECTION MEETING - MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL. BIM-Update (Lawrence Chapman). Manchester Metropolitan University, Room E0.05, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN
17 August 2020 PWI Engineering Kids Day (see next page)
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN
17 August 2020 PWI International Week (see next page)
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN
7 September 2020 PWI Careers Week (see next page)
COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN 30 November 2020 PWI Family Week (see next page)
TRAINING - PWI TRACK ENGINEERING DIPLOMA
21 - 24 September 2020 MODULE 2 9 - 12 November 2020 MODULE 3 (See page 78)
TRAINING - S&C REFURBISHMENT
6 - 8 October 2020 Part A 20 - 22 October 2020 Part B (See page 78)
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW INTERVIEWS
16 Sept 2020, 173-177 Euston Rd, London NW1 2BJ 16 Dec 2020,173-177 Euston Rd, London NW1 2BJ Professional Review Reports must reach us at least six weeks prior to your preferred interview date.
JOURNAL COPY SUBMISSION DEADLINES
July 2020 Issue, Deadline 15 May 2020 October 2020 Issue, Deadline 15 August 2020 January 2021 Issue, Deadline 15 November 2020
PWI TECHNICAL SEMINARS See page 17 for details.
9-10 September
RAIL LIVE Stand J3, Quinton Rail Technology Centre, CV37 8RP. BOOK HERE: www.raillive.org.uk
Mental Health Awareness Week - 18 May
Join in nationwide discussions about mental health led by the Mental Health Foundation. This year is on the theme of sleep, focussing on how sleep and the lack of sleep can impact mental health. The PWI will specifically be building awareness of mental health issues within the rail industry and how sleep is a big factor.
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts and if you have any views or experiences you wish to share, please join in using #MentalHealthAwarenessWeek #mentalhealth #MHAW2020 #thepwi
World Environment Day - 5 June
Join in global discussions about sustainability and the environment. This year is on the theme of biodiversity. Read more here: www.worldenvironmentday.global. As a rail community, it is important that we think about sustainability. We will be issuing a factsheet ahead of this day that talks about British ecosystems and ways to reduce your own carbon footprint and encourage your network to do the same. Please spread the word, share with others, and email us with any stories or suggestions about action you have taken, or would like to take, to tackle environmental issues. Do you volunteer at a local wildlife trust? Are you a wildlife enthusiast in your spare time? Tell us your stories ahead of this week so that we can share online.
Engage with Tech Talks: We will be discussing as a rail institution how we do our part, both individually and as a community. We are engineers at heart, which means we’re great problem solvers. How can the rail industry go more “green” over the next ten years? Could we implement more carbon offsetting? Do employers need to lead change from the top or do individuals need to lead change from the ground? Sign up to PWI Tech Talks on LinkedIn to join in the discussion.
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts during this week using #worldenvironmentday #worldenvironmentday2020 #thepwi
Rail Safety Week - 22 June
Help the rail community raise public awareness of rail safety, led by the Rail Safety Week group: https://twitter.com/ RailSafetyWeek. We would like to organise a week of safety talks across our community. Can you volunteer to lead one in your place of work? Either virtually or in person? If so, please email us your ideas so that we can schedule in and assist with the organisation and promotion. Please also send us any photos of safety devices and equipment that you think are super cool and essential to rail safety, that perhaps the average individual outside of engineering wouldn’t know keeps them safe when using rail transport, so that we can share.
Engage with Tech Talks: Please join in themed discussions on rail safety technology during this week, that we will announce in advance.
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts during this week using #railsafety #railsafetyweek @RailSafetyWeek #thepwi
PWI Engineering Kids Day - 17 August
An opportunity for families in our community to involve their children in engineering and raise enthusiasm and interest, in association with https://young-engineers.co.uk/. If you have any children in your family, please spend some time with them doing an engineering activity and send us photos of the process and/or end result. We will send a list of suggestions ahead of this week for a community competition, with a prize. Examples include, build a Lego train set, fix something in the house with whatever tools and materials you can find, sketch a design solution to a well-known problem. We will issue all the details ahead of August and would love for you to involve younger members of your family.
Engage with social media: Please post photos of your activities on social media and tag in the PWI so that we can reshare, using #PWIKidsEngineers #thepwi
PWI International Week - 24 August
Join us as we celebrate our international connections and the great work and activities by international members of the PWI community. If you are a member of the PWI who currently works abroad, please send us photos of your life at work or any great projects you are currently involved in, along with your thoughts and ideas about how as an Institution we can expand our international activities, so that we can share. ‘A day in the life of a Track Engineer in India’ is an example of a story we would love to share.
Engage with Tech Talks: We will be discussing the major differences in rail technology between different parts of the world in our LinkedIn group, Tech Talks. Please join in.
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts during this week using #PWIInternationalWeek #InternationalRail #EngineersLife #thepwi
PWI Careers Week - 7 September
Discuss, explore and celebrate careers in rail engineering and promote how the PWI supports the lifelong career journeys of our members. Please email us your stories about how the PWI has helped your career and tell us about your rail career journey in general, so that we can share as case studies. What would you do different? What would you advise new professionals entering the rail industry now? What obstacles, challenges and opportunities do you foresee for them?
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts during this week using #PWICareersWeek #thepwi
Join us as we focus on family matters and the importance of a healthy work/life balance in the rail industry as we start to approach Christmas 2020. Do you have a family member who supports and encourages your work? Perhaps you only got into rail because of a parent or sibling? Perhaps you wouldn’t be able to work as hard or as well as you do without the support of your spouse? We would love you to pay tribute to them by volunteering to take part in a short film that looks to celebrate families in rail, to be released during PWI Family Week. Please register your interest by emailing us asap.
Engage with social media: Please like, share and comment on our posts during this week using #PWIFamilyWeek #thepwi and share your own tributes to any family members that have played a significant role supporting your career. This could be as simple as, “my wife still makes me a packed lunch every day before work and nobody does bacon butties like her.” Anything you would like to say thank you for!
To say that lots has happened since publication of the last Journal is a complete understatement and this is only the second time that I have written this piece! Firstly there was the news that the Northern Rail franchise had been taken back into public ownership, and the government announced that HS2 would be built. There was more positive news with the green light given to the extension of the East West project, and some ambitious targets were also announced to phase out petrol and diesel cars. On 4 March the PWI held a very successful conference in Manchester with the theme of “Utilising New Technology on the Railways”. And then Covid-19 happened.
Our first casualty was the OLE Conference in Glasgow which was to take place in April and has now been postponed until October, and numerous Section meetings have also had to be curtailed. But our community has been as innovative as ever and the Manchester Section held the first online Section meeting, with 37 members joining in. Since then the PWI have held a number of meetings online including the Membership Committee and Academic Panel, so PWI business continues during this most testing of times. I have been working on arranging a venue for the Practical Trackwork Challenge in October 2020. The location will be announced very shortly but the Autumn looks as though it will be a very busy time with both planned and re-arranged PWI events in October, November and early December.
I was particularly impressed pre Covid-19 of the efforts of our newest Section in Exeter in organising a professional registration workshop in early February. At this workshop, candidates (under the tutelage of Paul Ebbutt, PWI Professional Development Officer for the South) prepared a draft of their application for their aspired level of registration. Perhaps it is too early to judge the effectiveness of this workshop but congratulations to Mark Woollacott and colleagues in organising an event to help railway engineering staff become professionally qualified and so boosting professional membership of the Institution.
I know that many of you are still going into work every day, as part of an unseen workforce that keeps the railway operational. I sincerely hope that you keep safe and stay fit and well.
Andy Steele Technical Content ManagerPWI Technical Content Manager’s (TCM) Andy Steele (left) and Andy Packham (right) source interesting high-quality technical papers and content for the PWI Journals, textbooks and other printed and online media.
They also arrange PWI seminars and training courses, packing them with relevant technical content, delivered by presenters who have great knowledge and a passion to share it.
Do get in touch with us if you have a potential Journal paper to contribute or if you would like to present at one of our seminars. We’d be delighted to hear from you! Also, if there are particular subjects you want covered in the Journal or at a seminar, please let us know.
Covid-19 has meant we have had to make changes in when we run our PWI seminars this year, so I’ll use this “spot” to let you know about two of these, adding brief thoughts on the PWI’s engagement with academia.
I’m working hard to put together a great speaker programme and exhibition for our Plant and Machinery seminar that will take place at the Swindon Steam Museum on Wednesday 4 November. This will be a great opportunity to drive ahead thinking on the kit needed to build, maintain and develop our railway safety and efficiently.
The London Section had put a fantastic programme together for their annual half-day seminar “On track for a safer railway” and this will now be delivered in early December. Lessons from the past will be considered along with current best practice and a look at how future technology advances might unlock further improvements. It will be the first time the PWI uses the Institute of Physics (IoP) to stage one of its seminars. To secure preferential arrangements with the IoP, we were asked to demonstrate how the objectives of the PWI align with theirs. As I listed examples of how physics is put to good use in infrastructure engineering, it reminded me of the excellent railway R&D work being carried out at UK Universities.
Permanent
Way Institution andy.steele@thepwi.orgIn recent days, us "Andys" have talked about how the railway community is responding to the huge challenge being faced with Covid-19. We are both amazed and grateful that so many, often unsung, PWI members and their colleagues are going to work each day help to keep the railway operational. More than ever, please keep supporting each other - making sure everyone stays safe, sane, fit and well both at work and at home.
Before Covid-19, I enjoyed visiting several Universities to develop the PWI’s engagement with academia and secure future Journal papers; one example of which is published in this edition. We learn how the University of Sheffield are tackling Autumn adhesion problems using jets of dry ice (a positive use of CO2!). I also visited the University of Leeds to find out about their Institute for High Speed Rail and System Integration. They are building a huge new infrastructure test facility capable of realistically testing track systems by replicating forces and effects experienced at speeds up to 400kph. At the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) conference late last year I met key people from the Universities leading this Network: Birmingham, Southampton and Huddersfield - and you will see some really interesting articles from these sources in future Journals describing innovations that will be future “business and usual” for railway infrastructure engineers.
Andy Packham Technical Content Manager Permanent Way Institution andy.packham@thepwi.orgAndy Packham and Andy Steele, PWI Technical Content Managers, give their viewpoints on all things railway.
PWI Section meetings are great places to learn about rail projects and new technical developments, and network with other rail professionals.
The QR Codes on this page will take you directly to the Section page on the website where you’ll find useful meeting information such as locations, meeting details and easy ways to book.
Open the camera on your smart phone and hold it over the QR code as if taking a photograph of it. If your camera is clever enough to recognise the code, target handles will appear around the code and you should see a request to open the targeted webpage, click select.
If your camera doesn’t play ball, simply download a QR reader app. Open the app and follow the instructions, they are generally very easy to follow.
IRELAND
The Ashling Hotel, D08 K8P5 / The Prince of Wales Hotel, N37 T2P0 / The Brookfield Suite, BT1 3LP
GLASGOW WSP Offices, 7th Floor, G1 3BX
WEST YORKSHIRE
The Cosmopolitan Hotel, LS1 4AE
BIRMINGHAM
2nd Floor, Network Rail, Baskerville House, B1 2ND
NOTTINGHAM & DERBY Aston Court Hotel, DE1 2SL / Jury’s Inn Hotel, NG2 3BJ
LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE Station Hotel, PR1 8BN / Royal Station Hotel, LA5 9BT / Network Rail, CA28 6AX / Network Rail, CA1 2NP
CROYDON & BRIGHTON Mott MacDonald House, CR0 2EE
LONDON
10th Floor, London Underground, SW1H 0BD /
Transport for London, E20 1JN
SOUTH & WEST WALES
Network Rail Offices, CF10 5ZA
Response Codes (QR codes) are little blocky, black and white squares of digital information that take the user to an app or webpage on their smartphone, like magic.
BENGALURU
Arcadis Sez Office Bengaluru, Karnataka 560045, India
EDINBURGH
The Scots Guards Club, EH12 5DR
NORTH EAST Newcastle College Rail Academy, NE10 0JP
YORK
Network Rail Meeting Rooms 0.1, George Stephenson House, YO1 6JT
MILTON KEYNES Auditorium, The Quadrant, MK9 1EN
CHESHIRE & NORTH WALES
The Town Crier Inn, CH1 3AE / Crewe Arms Hotel, CW2 6DN
MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL Manchester Metropolitan University, Room E0.05, M1 5GD
THAMES VALLEY
Network Rail Offices, Davidson House Offices, RG1 3EU
WEST OF ENGLAND Engine Room, Atkins, SN1 1DW
WESSEX The Rose and Crown, SE1 8DP / The Eastleigh Railway Institute, SO50 9FE / Network Rail Offices, Waterloo Station, SE1 8SW
EXETER
Network Rail, Training Room, Central Station Buildings, Queen Street, Exeter, EX4 3SB
The seminar dates shown here have been set on the basis of the best advice currently available. Should the emergency continue into the Autumn we will hold seminars as an online event or defer into 2021. We remain very grateful for the patience and support of sponsors, speakers and delegates. We wish all well and trust you will continue to bear with us through this difficult time.
Sponsored by
The Scottish Government has recognised the benefits of a rolling programme of electrification and Network Rail Scotland is developing those plans. Electrifying an existing railway requires the electrification system to be integrated into the broader railway system: the configuration of the traction system and its constituent parts has implications for the operation, maintenance, and performance of the railway. The challenge facing engineers of all disciplines is to simplify the systems integration task so that it supports a rolling programme of electrification rather than impedes it. This seminar will help engineers across the railway disciplines understand the implications of converting a route to electric traction, and explore ways in which system specification, design, and implementation can support a rolling plan.
01/10/2020 09:00 - 16:30 £70 MEMBER / £120 NON-MEMBER / £10 STUDENT
European railway networks are booming and the demand for rail travel continues to increase. As the train services to meet this demand are added to the network, access to carry out maintenance and renewal work is at a premium. The pressure to do more work in shorter possessions drives a requirement for more productive, mechanised, work delivery methods. Effective, safe, and highly productive plant is an essential component of this. Plant and the methods and strategies to deploy it that can together deliver high quality, durable infrastructure at lower unit costs is crucial to meeting industry challenges: along the way it must play its part in reducing rail sector carbon emissions and other environmental impacts, and in improving the performance and reputation of the railway.
This seminar will provide delegates and speakers with an opportunity to understand and debate the requirements for plant to meet these challenges, and the solutions that are being deployed and developed to deliver them.
04/11/2020 09:00-16:30 £70 MEMBER / £120 NON-MEMBER / £10 STUDENT
SPONSORSHIP AND EXHIBITOR SPACE AVAILABLE Please contact 01277 230 031 (option 1) / secretary@thepwi.org
For infrastructure engineers, delivering a railway that is safe for the people who use it, work on it and interact with it will always be a paramount responsibility. Welcoming guest speakers from RAIB, CIRAS, Plasser and Network Rail’s Safety Task Force, this seminar will provide delegates and speakers with an excellent opportunity to understand and discuss important aspects of railway safety, helping them to discharge this responsibility effectively. The seminar will include topics such as: Worker safety and the current actions and programmes in place to ensure people go home safe everyday / Particular safety considerations within the railway environment, for instance: electrification systems, working with plant / The importance of reporting and building safety into everyone’s behaviour / Reviewing significant historical railway accidents to understand root causes and reinforce the lessons learnt.
We welcome corporate members from all sectors of the rail industry.
Corporate members are fully involved in the development of the PWI, ensuring that its products and services meet the needs of the rail industry for technical expertise.
Corporate members benefit from:
• Reserved places at our technical seminars
• Quarterly technical board meetings presenting a unique opportunity to discuss issues and challenges that face the whole industry
• Free copies of the Journal and preferential advertising rates
• Improving technical assurance in the industry by supporting the PWI’s professional registration initiative for rail infrastructure engineers.
In response to Covid-19, April and July technical board meetings will be held online. To attend, please email: secretary@thepwi.org
If you are interested in hosting a technical board meeting or delivering a technical presentation, please contact Brian Counter to discuss: technicaldirector@thepwi.org
PWI corporate membership is a strategic partnership designed to benefit the rail infrastructure industry.
great balance of content and great to see some of our younger members presenting.
As far as Section meetings are concerned, I am becoming ever more impressed by the technical quality and relevance around the country and we are attracting more younger members to them. Derby seems to have benefitted from a 17:0017:30 start, as the picture below shows.
OUT AND ABOUT - Well what a start to 2020! The weather was wet and there was heavy flooding but overall the winter seems to have been reasonably kind to the passenger. Like everyone, Covid-19 has kept me in, but working hard on how we can provide technical stuff remotely and I have already attended two online section meetings at Manchester and Swindon.
The PWI has a lot to celebrate going forward: beginning with the award of a 5-year licence from the Engineering Council, new members both individual and corporate, new ways of doing CPD, and future technical seminars re-dated for the autumn. My visits have included Three Bridges (near Gatwick) and meetings in London, Swindon and Birmingham.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHARING: JOURNAL, TEXT BOOKS AND HUB - Andy2 are doing great work: Andy P took a leading role in the technical content for this and January’s Journal, and Andy S is managing the programme for the OLE conference in Glasgow. Each of them is allocated a seminar to either organise or quality assure.
We will be completing reviews of our technical offering in the summer and making decisions about the hub and textbooks; your views are welcome.
AND FINALLY...We don’t know everything about track and even if we get the oldies in to advise, we always find new problems which can be technical, logistical, geographical or just surprises.
There are less derailments today, mainly due to the withdrawal of certain wagons especially the 3 m wheelbase coal wagons. So, there are other benefits in not burning coal anymore in the UK and using wind and solar power instead!
However we do still get a significant number of derailments and whilst, thankfully, no-one is injured, they do cause a great deal of disruption and cost. These types of derailment involve freight trains with bogies and are usually caused by gauge spread or flange climb (see below). The PWI include derailment investigation in Module 3 of the Track Engineering Diploma.
Please see page 71 for my PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION report and page 73 for my APPRENTICE / GRADUATE TRAINING AND EDUCATION report.
-
The Network Rail Winter Technical Engineering Conference was held at IET London and was another success with a varied programme including Nick Millington on safety and Robert Ampomah on the climate change effects on UK rail. I am working with him on the latter and making this a personal research challenge.
I hope the attendees enjoyed the NW Seminar in Manchester on 4 March as much as I did, it was a
PWI TECHNICAL BOARD - We have held one meeting since my last report. On 4 February we held the Technical Board in the GWR Board at Paddington Station, London. An incredible attendance with 32 people there. We commenced with an update on the new Light Rail Safety Standards Board (LRSSB) which was set up following the Croydon Sandilands Tram Crash which claimed seven lives. Peter Cushing, the interim CEO, explained the vision and work done so far. There are eight tramways in the UK with a combined total of 250 million passenger journeys in 2019. Standards development and risk management were the key theme. Dominic Trueman of TfL gave a presentation on the Croydon Tram System which followed a well involved discussion on rail breaks and track maintenance of ballasted and embedded track. Malcolm Pearce gave an update on the Practical Trackwork Challenge 2019 held at Leek, Staffordshire. Corporate members were asked to consider involvement in the 2020 event. We also had an interesting discussion on degree apprenticeships.
Brian Counter Technical Director Permanent Way Institution technicaldirector@thepwi.org
Most vertical alignments are designed utilising computer software such as BRT (Bentley Rail Track), but this guide may prove useful for checkers of detailed designs who wish to recreate the design from first principles or those site workers who may need to design a solution and have no access to computing technology.
The aim of vertical design is to provide a continuous designed line smoothing the humps and hollows of the survey with long gradients, linked where necessary with vertical curves, with a view to improving passenger comfort. This must be achieved whilst considering the following limiting factors:
• The correct inter relationship between adjacent tracks must be ensured. Not just within any S&C which is critical, but the designer should also ensure that tracks are not installed too high or too low to adjacent tracks, particularly during staged renewals.
• The clearance requirements at bridges, tunnels, platforms, lineside structures and level crossings must be met.
• An adequate ballast depth is achieved as per relevant standards.
Vertical alignment design is undertaken on the low rail at intervals normally not greater than 10 m. Surveys are very rarely done utilising conventional “dumpy” levels these days and are now almost always undertaken utilising total station technology. The designer should consider specifying a reduced interval of say 5 m centres to the surveyor when surveying through platforms, tunnels and other structures, particularly on curved tracks. Low rails are used because they provide easy reference. The cant is always applied positively and crossfalls and minimum ballast depths are more easily calculated.
A good vertical design drawing will show the following:
• Existing low rails plotted at an adequate scale. A good idea if designing by hand is to exaggerate the vertical scale and condense the horizontal so that the low, and more pertinently, the high points on the alignment are easily identifiable and can be smoothed easily. A 1:50 vertical and 1:1000 longitudinal scale achieves this.
• Designed low rails at the same intervals corresponding with the existing surveyed positions.
• Designed cants and transitions (or existing ones if level scheme only).
• Horizontal curve diagram.
• Diagrammatic line plan accurate to
longitudinal scale. (This could be the topographical “topo” survey).
• New line gradients and vertical curves.
• Details of bridges and structures.
So, after considering all of the limiting factors, an attempt can be made to design a vertical alignment removing the humps and hollows. Please note that if designing for a maintenance tamping scheme, then the design can only show lifts as it is impossible to lower with a tamper.
Gradients are normally expressed in percentage terms, ie the rise in metres per 100 metres. Rising gradients are expressed as positive and falling gradients as negative. Current Network Rail standards suggest that a vertical curve should be introduced whenever possible and definitely after an exceedance or difference of 0.2[%] or 2 mm/m on line speeds of up to and including 100 mph and 1 mm/m or 0.1[%] gradient difference from 101 mph to 125 mph. By installing vertical curves, the design standard deviations are bettered and the ride quality is improved.
Vertical gradients are calculated as follows:
The difference in reduced levels (heights) x 100 Length of the gradient
= gradient (as a %)
Andy Steele PWI Technical Content Manager
Vertical curves shall be provided between all successive elements. Where this is not possible, prior agreement with the RAM(T) or delegate to give derogation against the requirements of NR/L2/TRK/2102 (Design and Construction of Track) should be sought and obtained, and changes of gradient shall not exceed:
2 mm/m for speeds up to 100 mph 1 mm/m for speeds between 101 mph and 125 mph
Vertical curves shall be provided for speeds of > 125 mph
The Track Design handbook also states that vertical curves should be a minimum of 25 m long. The author thinks that it is good practice to install vertical curves everywhere it is possible to do so. Other limiting factors are found within module 2 of NR/L3/TRK/2049 and also within NR/L2/TRK/2102 (Design and Construction of Track).
The excellent TfL Category 1 Standard, S1157 Track – Performance, Design and Configuration also lists the governing values for the insertion of vertical curves which equates to a desirable maximum of 1 mm/m (0.1 m/s^2) with an absolute maximum of 3 mm/m (0.3 m/s^2) and in very exceptional cases up to 0.6 mm/s^2 . For more details refer to 3.2.6.3 of the TfL standard.
Curves tangent at the tangent points TP1 and TP2 which are equi-distant about the Intersection Point (IP). That means that for a 30 m long vertical curve both tangent points will be 15 m away from the IP.
Gradient = 120.983- 120.645 x 100 3430 – 2820
Gradient = 0.338 x 100 610
Gradient = 0.0554%
Calculating the intermediate points along the gradient is then really easy to do, particularly if your calculator has a replay button.
Height along this gradient = 120.645 + 0.00554x (distance from point A) See figure 1.
Within module 1 of NR/L3/TRK/2049, the Track Design handbook on page 41 of 47 states that:
Part 1 of a series of back to basic articles
The linking vertical curves are calculated using the formula:
a = G1% - G2% 2N
Where:
G1 is the approaching gradient G2 is the departing gradient N is the length of curve in metres divided by 100
a is the offset from gradient to curve at a point 100 metres from the tangent point (this is known as the ‘a’ value of the curve).
The radius of the curve in km is then calculated by:
R = 5 a
The properties of any point along that curve are such that any offset X at a distance L from the tangent point can be found from:
An example is included below:
For a hog curve the level on the approaching gradient is calculated and X is subtracted from this figure. For a sag curve then the level on the approaching gradient is calculated and the X is added to this figure.
The eagle eyed amongst you will have noted that the above formula is not for a circular curve. It is in fact a parabola. This is due to that fact that when the ratio of the length of curve to radius is less than 1 to 10, there is no practical difference between the shapes of a circle, parabola and an ellipse, and since this condition can be shown to apply in the cases normally met, then a parabola can be used.
The TfL standard S1157 states vertical curves shall be equally disposed horizontally about the vertical intersection points and shall ideally be of a parabolic or circular form.
Design a vertical curve fit for 125 mph and calculate the levels between Point A and Point C
G1%-G2% = 0.097 which is less than 0.1 but as there are no limiting factors a vertical curve is required. The minimum length of curve is 25 m but as there are no other limiting factors such as station platforms, bridges or S&C it has been decided to install a 60 m vertical curve.
Next we need to calculate a value.
a = G1%-G2% = 0.097 = 0.081 2N 2 x 60/100
The radius is calculated by 5/a and is measured in km which equates to 61.728 m.
Our 60 m vertical curve will have tangent points at 170 m (TP1) and 230 m (TP2) and the curve will form a hog or a hump.
So, from chainages 0 m to 170 m our gradient will be constant 0.173%. Therefore, we can quickly calculate the levels from the formula Level = 99.5 + (distance from start point x grad).
0 0.00173 99.5 10 0.00173 99.5173 20 0.00173 99.5346 30 0.00173 99.5519 40 0.00173 99.5692 50 0.00173 99.5865 60 0.00173 99.6038 70 0.00173 99.6211 80 0.00173 99.6384 90 0.00173 99.6557 100 0.00173 99.673 110 0.00173 99.6903 120 0.00173 99.7076 130 0.00173 99.7249 140 0.00173 99.7422 150 0.00173 99.7595 160 0.00173 99.7768 170 0.00173 99.7941
Now we need to calculate the levels around our curve from 170 m to 230 m. Our first step is to calculate the levels along the 0.173% gradient to chainage 230 m. Then we calculate X using the formula (previously quoted) using the distance from TP1 for each point to calculate L. The a value is constant. As we are calculating a hump or a hog curve the final levels are calculated from subtracting x from the original gradient level.
CHAINAGE
170 0.00173 99.7941 0.081 0
Finally calculate levels on the constant gradient 0.076% between 230 m and 390 m. Calculate these levels from the IP at 200 m chainage and not from 230 m. This calculation also provides a check for the levels calculated around the curve because the level on the curve at TP2 or 230 m should correspond to the level calculated from G2% at the same chainage. Sometimes there will be a rounding error of up to a 1 mm.
FROM IP
230 30 0.00076 99.868
240 40 0.00076 99.875
250 50 0.00076 99.883
260 60 0.00076 99.891
270 70 0.00076 99.898
280 80 0.00076 99.906
290 90 0.00076 99.913
300 100 0.00076 99.921
310 110 0.00076 99.929
330 130 0.00076 99.944
340 140 0.00076 99.951
350 150 0.00076 99.959
360 160 0.00076 99.967
370 170 0.00076 99.974
380 180 0.00076 99.982
390 190 0.00076 99.989
Finally, we need to calculate the lifts and lowers. If the design level is higher than the surveyed level than that would represent a lift. If the design level is lower than the surveyed level, then this would be a lower.
Surveying, Bannister and Raymond, Pitman paperbacks 1964
NR/L3/TRK /02049 issue 14 Track Design Handbook
NR/L2/TRK/2102 issue 8 Design and Construction of Track
Understanding Track Engineering, Permanent Way Institution, 2014
Transport For London, London Underground Category 1 Standard S1157 Track –Performance, Design and Configuration
Figure 1: Replay button
The gradients intersect at point B. An intersection point is commonly known as the IP.
Firstly, we calculate the gradients: G1% is between point A and point B and is rising and is therefore +ve. G2% is between point B and Point C and is also +ve.
180 0.00173 99.8114 0.081 10 0.00081 99.811
190 0.00173 99.8287 0.081 20 0.00324 99.825
200 0.00173 99.846 0.081 30 0.00729 99.839
210 0.00173 99.8633 0.081 40 0.01296 99.850
220 0.00173 99.8806 0.081 50 0.02025 99.860
230 0.00173 99.8979 0.081 60 0.02916 99.869
Newark flat crossing is a junction on the East Coast Mainline (ECML 120ml 63ch) just north of Newark Northgate station that intersects the Newark to Lincoln line (NOB1 17ml 74ch). See image 1.
The junction is unique in that it comprises of eight double star crossings that allow the two tracks of each line to cross each other. The angle of the crossings is 44˚. There are no switches at the junction allowing trains to transfer from one track to another.
The crossings are supported by a matrix of eight interlinked longitudinal bearers, each 16 m in length and 350 mm deep. The bearers of the original layout were made from ‘green heart’ timber, which is a very hard and dense wood that was considered to be the wood that would provide the best performance for the layout at the time of the previous renewal in 2003.
The previous renewal carried out in 2003 had installed crossings with an unusual direct fastening system.
The crossing foot was manufactured so that the LSA screws were installed at an angle of 1 in 20 to the vertical plane, as shown in figure 1. It was thought that having two screws on opposite sides of the casting inclined at this angle toward the centre of the casting would provide a more secure method of ‘pinning’ the castings in position and therefore prevent lateral movement of the crossings occurring. The holes that were drilled in the crossing foot were larger than the corresponding screw shank by some margin. This gap was filled by using a nylon ferrule. Over time the lateral forces applied to the crossings through to the fastening system crushed and wore away the nylon ferrules. This allowed lateral movement to develop at the interface between the crossing foot and the screws.
By 2014 45% of the screws in the whole layout of Newark flat crossing had broken. These could not be repaired because the density of the greenheart timber that the bearers were made from made it almost impossible to remove the broken screws.
I got involved with Newark flat crossing at this point to lead the work to resolve the crossing foot design problem. This was redesigned in 2015 to have a vertical screw with an eccentric steel ferrule (figure 2) to allow for the possibility of screw holes being drilled off centre to the crossing foot hole centre. To avoid the screw holes of the new crossings clashing with broken screws still in place in the bearers from the old crossing screws, the position of the holes in the cast crossing foot were offset by 50 mm.
The crossings in this junction are subjected to some of the highest impact forces on the network due to their design. It was decided to use EDH for the replacement crossings as part of the redesign to reduce the plastic deformation of the nose and wing rails during the initial bedding in of the crossings.
The EDH process involves laying a thin layer of explosive on the area to be hardened (image 2) and detonating it. This has the effect of compressing and hardening a thin layer of the crossing surface. This hardening helps reduce the amount of plastic deformation that occurs on austenitic manganese steel (AMS) crossings during the initial running of traffic over them. The running surface of AMS crossings Is relatively soft until some traffic tonnage has run over it.
The area of the double star crossings where EDH was used was restricted to the crossing nose and wing rail of the wheel transfer area. Increasing this for all running surfaces would have risked damaging or destroying the casting during the EDH process.
The revised crossings were installed in 2015 and since then no fastener failures have been reported.
At this point you may be asking yourself, “Ok that’s great, but what has that got to do with the 2019 renewal ?”
When I found out about the plan to renew the whole layout I was surprised because all the crossings had only been replaced three years previously. They were running well with the implementation of a regular crossing inspection regime to assess the condition of the crossings and carry out any repairs necessary.
The renewal was planned to be like for like. This would mean using the same greenheart (or similar) timber bearer construction. This would have been a nightmare in waiting for maintenance as the previous problems of broken screws would potentially reoccur leaving this impossible to maintain. This clearly would not have improved the RAMS (reliability, accessibility, maintainability and safety) of this junction.
The layout was last renewed in 2003, see image 3. The main driver for the 2019 renewal was the poor condition of the ballast under the bearers; the bearer condition had started to deteriorate and the track quality was in the super red band.
The contract for the supply of the replacement layout for Newark flat crossing had been awarded to Progress Rail Services Limited.
AUTHOR Phil WinshipPrincipal Engineer, Asset Enhancement Team, Track and S&C, Safety, Technical and Engineering Network Rail
Chartered Mechanical Engineer and member of the IET
Joined the railway in 2002 on the Track Conversion Course as Railtrack transformed into Network Rail.
2002 – 2007 Spent 5 ½ years in track maintenance on the East Midlands.
2007 Moved to role of Senior Track Design Engineer within HQ Engineering.
2010 Transferred to the S&C team in engineering as Senior Engineer.
March 2018 – present. Joined the Asset Enhancement team on secondment as Principal Engineer.
As part of the preparation work for the renewal, an investigation of the track bed condition was carried out by the Network Rail Track Bed Investigation (TBI) team. See figure 3a and 3b.
The investigation included an assessment of the condition of the ballast and formation under the layout. This involved digging numerous trial holes and taking samples of the ballast and formation to form a picture of the condition of the site. The results from this work provided information that enabled an optimised track bed design to be developed for the renewal. The existing layout had geocells installed under the bearers and these were still in good condition. The new track bed design incorporated additional geocell sections that would increase the area of support under the layout and into the transition zones.
The TBI team also considered the effect of installing under bearer pads to the layout and how this might help increase the life of the ballast. They found that installing under bearer pads to the bearers could reduce ballast degradation over a 30-year period from 20 mm to 10 mm, see figure 4, prolonging the ballast life and reducing the rate of ballast degradation by around 90%.
The selected track bed design shown in figure 5 required.
• Under sleeper pads to reduce ballast deterioration, especially in the ‘top’ layer.
• Ballast compacted in two layers.
• Additional geocell layer on top of existing geocells to minimise ballast deterioration in ‘bottom’ layer.
• High accuracy of installation.
• Understanding that deterioration is expected as it is a ballasted system and settlement cannot be entirely eliminated.
It was anticipated that there would be a degree of settlement of the layout after the renewal which would need to be accounted for as part of the installation plan.
Network Rail Route Services investigated the possibility of sourcing the replacement timbers required for the 16 m long bearers that were needed to make the bearer matrix. The problems with this were two fold.
• Greenheart timber was no longer FSC approved and therefore against Network Rail policy to use.
• The source of suitable timber was problematic due to civil unrest in Cameroon and other sources in Brazil not being able to supply the timber length required.
The lead time for the timber bearers (where available) was at least 18 months which would be well beyond the agreed possession dates
of August bank holiday weekend 2019. The possibility of specifying the bearers to be replaced using a composite alternative was then considered as a viable alternative to using timber.
I challenged the planned use of replacement timber bearers to avoid the problems of the previous layout and to look at alternatives such as a composite alternative. This eventually resulted in engaging with Sekisui regarding the supply of bearers made from fibre reinforced foamed urethane (FFU). Some FFU longitudinal bridge bearers had been supplied at trial sites in Southern region a few years previously, which had proven to be very successful.
There are a number of benefits in using the FFU material.
• The bearers can be made to any shape required.
• The FFU material has some similar properties to timber, ie it can be drilled or cut etc.
• It does not rot like timber.
• FFU has a potential lifespan of up to 50 years.
Agreement was reached with LNE route (now Eastern region) RAM(Track) engineers to change the bearers to the FFU material. Network Rail Track and S&C team within the Safety, Technical and Engineering Department
(STE) would provide the engineering support to facilitate the manufacture and supply of the bearers with Route Services support.
The manufacturer (Sekisui) was very positive in being able to supply the bearers in an FFU composite form. However, one major problem quickly became evident; the Sekisui factory in Japan could only supply up to 10 m lengths due to factory size constraints, when the Newark layout required 16 m long bearers. In addition, the maximum length that could be transported by shipping container was also 10 m.
The question of how we could overcome this problem involved further innovation, but this time not to the FFU product, but the physical production of the bearers.
The possibility of Progress Rail making the bearers in the UK with support from Sekisui was proposed. This was a very different challenge for Progress Rail as they had not manufactured anything like this before. After various discussions between Network Rail, Progress Rail and Sekisui, agreement was reached that Progress Rail would manufacture and assemble the bearers at one of their facilities in Derbyshire under the supervision of Sekisui engineers from the factory in Japan. This was the first time that any FFU bearers had been manufactured outside Japan by Sekisui.
Whilst the details of how the bearers would be manufactured in the UK was being agreed, the engineering drawings for the layout were drafted by Sekisui. These were submitted to NR and approved ready for the manufacture to commence in June 2019. Sekisui supplied all materials to Progress Rail, including the bearer small sections that could be preassembled at the factory in Japan. Progress Rail sourced clamps and other sundries in the UK to complete the tooling requirements for the assembly of the materials.
FFU is a material made from a glass fibre and polyurethane composite (figure 6). The material is manufactured by a pultrusion process in 30 mm thick lengths that are then layered to achieve the product height required. The layers are bonded together with an adhesive forming a very strong composite structure.
The material has the durability of a plastic, is a third lighter compared to wood, has workability properties similar to wood and has many other properties equal to or better than hard wood.
The introduction of the FFU composite material for the bearer matrix of the layout was assessed as significant and agreed by NRAP(Network Rail Acceptance Panel) in accordance with CSM-RA requirements when introducing a novel material or component.
This was at odds with the CSM-RA submission to NRAP of Infrastructure Projects (IP)
Figure 4: Ballast degradation analysis. Figure 5: Selected track bed design.
Image 2: Strips of explosive in place in preparation for EDH.
Image 3: The 2003 renewal being installed using a large road crane.
Figures 3a and 3b: Track bed investigation report extract.
engineers for the layout. Their assessment was based upon the fact that the layout was being replaced as a like for like configuration, as the physical design of the layout was not changing.
The CSM-RA process was facilitated and followed by the STE technical lead engineer (myself) with support for IP and LNE route engineers. This involved appointing an independent Assessment Body (AsBo) to carry out an assessment of the evidence and documents required by the CSM-RA and to confirm the process had been correctly followed.
The CSM process involved a significant amount of work, involving many stakeholders attending various hazard identification workshops to work through identifying the hazards and risks of introducing the FFU composite material for this application. Anyone who has been through the full CSM-RA process will no doubt appreciate the amount of documentation this requires.
The materials for manufacturing and assembly of the bearers were shipped over by Sekisui to the Progress Rail facility in Derbyshire and arrived at the end of May 2019.
The manufacture of the bearers in accordance with the NR approved engineering drawings commenced in early June 2019. This involved
the Progress Rail team assembling and gluing the 30 mm thick layers of FFU together in a lattice pattern under the supervision of Sekisui engineers to form the bearer lengths required (see figure 7).
The main body of the bearers was specified as FFU74 (740 kg/m3) with a top layer of higher density FFU 100 (100 kg/m3). This was to add further resilience to the bearer surface for possible long-term attrition from the crossing componentry. This work was made even more interesting as the Sekisui engineers did not speak English, so all communication had to be done through an interpreter. Despite this challenge, the Progress Rail team worked extremely well with the Sekisui engineers to make each of the bearers in the planned timescale.
Once the bearers had been successfully manufactured, see images 4a, 4b and 4c, the beams were assembled to form the bearer matrix for the layout. See image 5. It was decided, after consultation with the Sekisui engineers, to mirror the assembly of the timber bearers by adding bolts through the beam sections at the same positions as the previous timber bearers as an additional method of securing the composite layers together. This was in addition to the bolts that would be used to fasten the 16 joints where the bearers overlap.
The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed that the FFU base material is a cream colour. Sekisui have a standard colour option for railway bearers; following the example of Henry Ford with the Model T, you can have any colour you like as long as it is muddy brown!
The bearers were coated with a brown paint that is specified for use with the FFU. As you may expect you can’t just use any paint as it needs to be compatible with the FFU material.
The track bed investigation considered the potential benefits of using under bearer pads (UBPs) in the assembly. The modelling of the whole system carried out by the TBI team, indicated an 88% improvement in ballast settlement rate using UBPs compared to a 42% improvement with FFU alone.
With the ballast life and condition being one of the drivers for the renewal, the decision to fit UBPs to the FFU bearers was not a difficult one. However, this did create a problem of the length and shape of UBP material that was required. This was resolved by using multiple lengths of UBPs for normal sized bearers to cover the whole surface area of the FFU bearers. Another ‘small’ issue was sourcing an adhesive that was compatible with both the FFU and the UBP material.
The design of the crossings was largely unchanged. However, this was reviewed to see where incremental improvements could be made. This focused largely on the fastening system, where possible changes were identified to improve the reliability and maintainability of the interface between the crossings and bearers. The changes to the fastening system built upon those made when the crossings were changed in 2105.
The main improvement was to remove the need for an eccentric ferrule as a component of the crossing foot fastening system. To do this the diameter of the hole drilled in the foot of the casting was reduced to be slightly wider than the adjacent screw shank. This has resulted in a much tighter tolerance between the crossing foot and screw shank dimension. The removal of the eccentric ferrule has also lowered the overall height dimension of the previous crossing foot/ferrule/screw combination. This has allowed an additional 10 mm of the screw shank to be in the bearer, improving the ability of the screw to resist lateral movement in service.
The removal of the eccentric ferrule also reduces the component inventory required to be available to maintain the layout. There are approximately 480 screw fasteners in the crossings of the layout.
Figure 8 shows the revised crossing foot fastener system that is now installed on the newly installed layout.
Figure 6: Pultrusion process and the finished material.The intention was to supply EDH’d crossings for the renewal similar to the 2015 crossings previously installed. However, during the manufacturing of the first two crossings for the layout, some small cracks were found in one of the crossing noses after EDH had been carried out. See image 6.
The reason behind this was unclear at the time. There was a high risk that the other remaining six double star crossings could suffer the same problem if EDH was applied. There would not be enough time to produce additional castings and meet the timescales required by the project for the installation dates.
After discussions with the LNE RAM(Track) engineers and STE engineers, the decision was taken to accept the crossings without EDH being applied. This introduced the problem of managing the plastic flow of the crossing nose and wing rails during the initial few weeks of the layout being open to traffic.
Plans were put in place with the route engineers, STE engineers and Progress Rail, to periodically inspect the crossings after the layout had been opened to traffic and carry out any remedial work after each inspection. This has continued to ensure the crossing profiles
are maintained correctly as the work hardening process of the wheel/rail interface develops. Since the EDH cracking problem was found, Progress Rail have successfully identified and rectified a small number of issues that appear to have resulted in the crack propagation during the EDH process and a spare crossing has been manufactured without the defect developing.
The production and assembly of the layout in a warehouse, images 7a and 7b, confirmed that the bearer parts manufactured on site, the crossings and associated components all fitted together correctly. However, the assembly had to be transported to the site. This meant stripping everything down and transporting it to a rail head at Beeston to be transported to site by train. This was the only viable way of transporting the bearer sections to site as they were too long to transport by road as access to the site was very restrictive for loads of this length.
The lifting and handling of the bearers was a key factor that needed to be considered at each point where the bearers needed to be moved. This was due to the interface
between the joints of each bearer section and the potential for the FFU to be damaged. A cautious approach was required as each bearer section was bespoke and would have been difficult to replace if any damage or distortion occurred.
The bearer unit is a matrix of overlapping double bearer sections. To enable the bearers to be moved to site, they had to be split down into the separate double bearer sections. These were easily lifted onto truck trailers at the warehouse site. There were two gantry cranes available to make sure the double bearer sections were lifted correctly without placing any stress on the sections that could deform or damage them.
Once at the rail head, the bearer sections were lifted from the trailers onto rail wagons by a Kirow crane using a spreader beam, see image 8a. This was also done to avoid placing stress on the bearers’ sections and potentially damaging or distorting them which could have prevented them being reassembled successfully at the construction site. This lifting operation was repeated when the sections were unloaded at the site and the bearer matrix reassembled.
There was a concern that lifting the double bearer sections with straps wrapped around
Image 5: The completed FFU bearer layout.the whole section could potentially squeeze the two bearer lengths together which could distort or damage them. To mitigate against this happening, a wooden ‘T’ section spacer was made and placed in between each double bearer section during lifting operations. See image 8b.
To enable the layout to be assembled on site, additional work was required by the newly formed Central Rail Systems Alliance (CRSA) to create a flat build area where the components could be re-assembled. See images 9a, 9b and 9c. This involved unloading and levelling over 200 tonnes of spoil to create an area next to the junction that was at the same height as the adjacent track, which left quite an embankment! This was regraded after the completion of the renewal and the boundary fencing reinstated.
Once the site had been prepared the double bearer beams were delivered, unloaded and re-assembled (see image 10). The re-assembly of the layout was carried out by Progress Rail for the project. This made perfect sense as the Progress Rail team had assembled the layout in the warehouse, and so had the experience and technique of fitting it together again. They were also aware of the importance of the correct re-assembly of the composite bearers. Giving this task to the CRSA team would have added another risk to the project as they had no experience in assembling such a complex layout.
The full assembly of all the layout components was not possible before the bearers were taken to site because the holes for the bolts in the bearer joints could not be accurately drilled prior to the re-assembly of the bearers. This was because of the risk of misalignment of the holes in each half of each joint. Any misalignment of the bearers would result in the misalignment of the crossings, as they had been accurately assembled on the bearers prior to being dismantled for transport to site.
Each of the joints between the bearer sections was glued and bolted together using the same adhesive used to join the laminate sections together. Once the bearer halves were reassembled, the four bolt holes in each joint were drilled through the full joint section. During the construction of the assembly there were various stages where what might appear to be a simple decision to be made turned into a more complex issue to resolve. One such issue was the orientation of the through bolts in the bearer joint, ‘bolt head up or bolt head down?’.
The problem was that the bearers were 350 mm deep and the bolts were 320 mm in length. The bearers were placed on slave rails as is common practice when assembling a layout, however the rails are generally only 159 mm in height. So, you don’t have to be a maths expert
to realise that getting a bolt in from under the bearer that is 320 mm long in a gap that is only 159 mm is not going to happen.
The shape of the recessed hole was also one of those ‘detail’ problems that needed to be resolved, as it would be very difficult to hold the head of the bolt underneath the bearer joint to stop it turning, whilst tightening the nut at the same time in a round hole.
This problem was solved by making a square shaped hole for a bespoke square shaped bolt head locking piece that sat under the bolt head and stopped the bolt head from turning when the nut was being tightened.
The bolt holes in the bearers were recessed to ensure that neither end of the bolt sat proud of the bearer surface. On the top of the bearers, this created a pocket for standing water to collect which was undesirable due to the potential for corrosion of the bolt to occur in the long term. To mitigate against this problem the bolts were torqued to the predetermined value for the FFU material properties and the recess filled with the same adhesive that was used to glue the laminate layers together. Inadvertently, this also acted as another locking mechanism for the torque prevailing type nut used.
Figure 8: The crossing foot fastening system of the 2019 installation.
Image 6: Cracking on the crossing nose after EDH.
Image 7a: Double star crossing.
The bearers were successfully assembled, and the crossings installed in place on top of the bearers in preparation for the layout to be installed.
Under each crossing is a bespoke 5 mm EVA pad and a 15 mm thick steel plate. The pad is the footprint of the crossing and the steel plate which has been kept from the last design to protect the bearer surface, extends wider than the crossing.
To simplify potential maintenance requirements, I took the decision to standardise the screw length throughout the whole layout. To enable this to be implemented a compromise had to be made with the baseplates on the check rail extension transition rails running on and off the crossings. Check rail baseplates from the NR56V S&C design were selected to be used which are made from a spheroidal cast iron.
This is a stronger cast iron than the previous grey iron check baseplates. The stronger cast iron baseplates enabled a higher toe load rail clip to be used, in this case a Pandrol® e-Plus clip. The higher toe load clip will help mitigate against rail movement due to seasonal ambient temperature variations.
The only difference to the standard UCV check baseplate that is used in NR56V S&C was that to enable the rail to be at the same height as the double star crossings running surface
the UCV baseplate rail seat needed to be thickened, see image 11.
The product acceptance requirements for the new layout needed primarily to consider the new use of the FFU composite material for this bespoke layout.
Those in IP who needed to ensure that the layout had a PA certificate in place, were a little nervous that the certificate was not signed off by the Professional Head of Track until two weeks before the installation. I had made it clear to the lead project engineer that this would be the case early in the project. He was happy with my reasoning and understood why this would be the case. This was because until the bearers had been fully constructed and each of the joints glued and bolted together successfully, from an engineering risk point of view, I was not prepared to accept the PA certificate was ready to be signed off. The risk was still very real that there could be a problem with the re-assembly of the bearers and especially the joints on site. This confirmation clearly could not have been carried out when the bearers were assembled in Progress Rail’s warehouse as they needed to be dismantled and transported to site. The final assembly inspection could only take place at the build site.
The hard work from the Progress Rail team who re-assembled the layout is clear to see as shown in image 12, with the layout completed and ready for installation on time.
During one site visit I made to check on progress and the joints for the PA certificate,
Image 8b:
with the Progress Rail team lead, I had one of those conversations where for a split second panic and doubt enters your mind. The conversation went something like this; ‘Phil, you know something, I’m not sure the angle of the bearers is right. Comparing that with the one in track, Hmmm…. not sure it’ll fit!”.
After quickly composing my mind, I assured him that the new crossings were exactly the same footprint as the one installed, so as they fit exactly on the new layout, I am sure the bearers are right shape and angle.
The planned possession for the installation of the layout was over the August bank holiday weekend (25 - 27) 2019. This just happened to be the hottest weekend of the year with ambient temperatures reaching 33˚C.
The method and process of removing the old layout and installing the new layout had been meticulously planned by the Central Rail Systems Alliance.
The method of removing the old layout and installing the new layout was to be carried out using two Kirow 250 cranes. The main advantage of using the rail mounted cranes was that they could operate under the overhead line equipment (OHLE).
This saved a significant amount of possession time that would have been required for removing and reinstating the OHLE as well as the resultant disruption. This also introduced other challenges such as a tandem lift with a 52 tonnes unusually shaped layout.
The plan for lifting the layout involved moving it from the assembly area to a holding area north
The spacer block. Image 8a: Double bearer sections being lifted onto rail wagons.of the Newark – Lincoln line and then lifting it into place. The outline plan for the tandem lift shown in figure 9 indicates the three steps to the installation lifts.
Temporary slave rail panels were needed to be used during the works to allow the cranes to manoeuvre the layout into position.
Due to the depth of the bespoke bearers (350 mm) combined with the additional height of the crossings, the new ballast bed was much lower than usually found on a track renewal. This meant that a simple short panel of track would not be suitable as the height difference between that and the crossing/bearer layout would be significant.
To resolve this issue a bespoke slave panel design was used with triple depth timber sleepers to bring the height of the slave panels into line with the layout height. This can be seen in the diagram and photo of a slave panel (figure 10).
After being installed for over 16 years and given the traffic tonnage that had passed over the junction, the ballast around the bearers of the layout was very well consolidated. Adding to the ballast compaction that had occurred over that time, the ballast had also been glued. This made extracting the old bearer assembly quite difficult as until you start removing this there was no way of knowing exactly how this would go.
The ‘old’ crossings were removed and retained for use as maintenance spares before the bearer matrix was cut into two sections to make their removal easier (image 13).
The lifting of the layout was carried out by the two Kirow 250 rail cranes in a tandem lift. One problem that we needed to understand during the lift planning stage was what the proposed lifting method would be? By that I mean the lifting points on the layout. How many would there be and where would they be? The ideal situation would be to use a spine beam and have multiple lifting points, therefore
supporting the layout evenly across the whole area of the bearers. This was not possible with the planned tandem lift with Kirow cranes. The compromise was to use a small ‘connection’ beam on each crane and place straps around two of the north and south joint clusters. Figure 11 shows the layout lifting points that were used.
This then raised the question of what stress would be place on the components and would the FFU bearers be able to withstand these? Complex calculations were carried out to understand the values involved and if there was a risk of damage occurring to the FFU bearers. These considered the stress that would occur in the bearers alone. The addition of the stiffening effect of the crossings was not included in the calculations but it was taken into account that the 8 double star crossings fastened to the top of the bearers would significantly stiffen the whole structure. The calculations considering the bearers alone, confirmed there was a factor of safety of at least 2.5, but this would be greater when considering the effect of the crossings being in situ. The conclusion was that there was little risk of the FFU bearer assembly being damaged during the lifting operation.
Another problem was the possibility of crushing the FFU at the point of contact between the straps and bearers. To mitigate against this 100 mm wide straps were used at each lifting point to spread the load as much as possible. The straps were sacrificial and were cut off once the layout was in place.
The plan for the lift was for both cranes to be on the Down EMCL and then to lift the layout, bring it into line with the track and then traverse north to the holding point in preparation for the second lift, placing the layout in its final position.
The first lift started well but once the jibs of each crane moved toward the track centre line, the position for the centre of gravity shifted, causing the layout to develop a very heavy list. This was definitely a heart in mouth moment. Once the lift had started there was little opportunity to place the layout down again until it reached the holding area.
Fortunately, the layout was successfully moved, if in a rather ungainly way, to the holding area without further incident (see image 14). The layout needed to be placed in the holding area to allow a slave panel that allowed one of the cranes to pass over the ‘hole’ where the old layout had been to be removed. The layout was then lifted into place and then ‘inched’ into its final position.
Asking a Kirow crane driver to move the jib position a few millimetres here and a few millimetres there is quite a big ask. But after a bit of adjusting it was set in its final position (images 15a, 15b and 15c).
After each lift, myself and a colleague inspected the bearers to confirm no damage had occurred to the FFU material or the bearer
Image 10: Bearer beams being unloaded and re-assembled on site.
This is a temporary track panel that is constructed and taken to a renewal site that can be used to fill a gap where track has been removed but rail vehicles need to travel over the area of removed track. Once the required rail vehicle manoeuvres have been completed, the temporary slave panel is removed, and the new track installed.
Image 12: The assembled layout awaiting installation.
Figure 9: The Kirow crane lifting stages.
Figure 10: Slave panel design to level rail heights during the installation.
Image 13: One half of the old bearers being removed.
Figure 11: The layout lifting points.
construction. Despite the stresses that had been placed on the bearers during the lifts, no distortion or structural damage had occurred. The only damage found was some light crushing of the bearer corners where the lifting straps had been placed.
Thanks to the great work of the Central Rail Systems Alliance, both lines were open on time with a TSR of 50 mph.
The layout had been installed 15 mm high, to take into account ballast settlement in the first few weeks of traffic. It was easier to grade in the transitions to a ‘high’ layout rather than lower everything because the layout had sunk due to settlement. Once the layout was in place there was no possibility of going back to lift and pack it.
After two weeks an inspection took place to check the condition of the bearers and crossings. If you remember, these were not EDH’d and were therefore expected to plastically deform during the first few weeks of traffic until work hardened. Sure enough, the crossing noses and wing rails had deformed
and needed to be ground to correct their profiles, which was carried out on the same weekend by the local welding manager and his team. It was also evident during the inspection that voiding had developed at various locations under the bearers. This was rectified during the same weekend using Robel hand tampers which proved extremely effective.
The linespeed on the ECML was raised to 80 mph (the linespeed on NOB1 is 50 mph) and after a further follow up inspection two weeks later by engineers from STE, CRSA, LNE (now Eastern Region) and the local TME, the linespeed was restored to 100 mph.
The track quality after the initial track recording run showed the ECML 1/8th of a mile the junction is in to be a super-red. This was a little disconcerting, but when you then factor in that this was before the hand tamping had been carried out, it was not too surprising. The next recording after the hand tamping showed a huge improvement bringing the track quality into the satisfactory band.
Those sceptics amongst you may feel that Is not where it should be, afterall it’s a brandnew layout. However, when you consider the number of discontinuities that are present in that 1/8th mile it is not a bad result:
• an under bridge over the river Trent to the north
• the northern set of adjustment switches
• the flat crossing (8 crossing noses (per track) within a few metres)
• the southern set of adjustment switches
• a crossover to the south
• an overbridge to the south.
An MST (maintenance scheduled task) continues to be in place to ensure the crossings are regularly inspected by the local welding manager and any small developing
defects are repaired early, preventing major disruption caused by larger defects and ensuring this important junction is well maintained.
The FFU bearers are currently inspected during the same visits by a STE engineer to confirm they continue to perform well. The University of Southampton has been engaged by STE to periodically monitor the layout with a sensor system to help gather data to further understand the performance of the FFU bearers. This monitoring will cover a full 12-month period since the renewal.
Some of those engineers who regularly travel by train over the flat crossing (se image 16) have commented to me that they always knew when they were going over the old layout, but now they are hard pressed to notice they’ve gone over the crossings…… Job well done!
Nigel Keightley; Senior Engineer, Eastern Region RAM(Track) team, Network Rail – the customer.
Steve Varley; Project Engineer, Infrastructure Projects, Network Rail – the project engineer.
Mark Smith; Lead Engineer, Infrastructure Projects, Network Rail – led the installation).
Dave Peet; Principal Engineer Track, Progress Rail Services Limited – the layout design engineer.
Kev King; Team leader; Progress Rail Services Limited – led the team that manufactured the FFU bearers and assembled the layout.
Günther Koller; Sekisui Engineer - engineered the bearers
Levente Nogy; Senior Design Engineer, TBI team, Network Rail – track bed investigation
Without the teamwork of the individuals above and others (and their respective teams) it would not have been possible to deliver this project.
My heartfelt thanks to all of you.
Image 16: A new Azuma train passing over the new flat crossing layout.
A complex and persistent problem faced by the GB rail industry is that of low adhesion at the rail/ wheel interface. This is often caused by a third body ‘contaminant’ between the wheel and rail that does not support high shear stresses. The stopping distance of a train is mainly determined by the friction between the wheel and the rail (adhesion). When low adhesion is present, there is a detrimental effect to the braking performance of trains, resulting in increased stopping distances, platform overruns [1], signals passed at danger (SPADs)[2] or collisions [3]. Wheel slides also cause considerable damage to wheels and rails which may mean that trains have to be taken out of service or rails replaced, both of which lead to disruption of service. Wheel slides can cause squat formation (a track defect). Squats are hard to identify in their initial stages and can affect track safety if not removed by preventative maintenance. Reduced adhesion also leads to driving wheels spinning, thus reducing vehicle acceleration and maximum speed. This can even lead to heavy freight trains ‘slipping’ to a stand-still on a gradient or rail burns. Although the low adhesion causing contaminant can arise from a variety of sources such as leaves, dust, oxides and moisture, much of the focus is during the autumn season tackling slippery leaf layers. These leaf layers arise through leaf mulch on the railhead being compressed in the specific conditions of the wheel rail contact and forms a black teflon like layer. Speed limits are typically imposed during the autumn season to maintain confidence in train deceleration rates, which results in the ‘autumn timetable’.
Dr Peter Krier is a Research and Development Engineer at the University of Sheffield. He has been applying his knowledge in Tribology to the wheel/rail interface, to develop an innovative system to tackle low adhesion on the railway. By working closely with industry he has facilitated the transition of the technology from small scale laboratory testing to integrated rail vehicle trials in multiple locations on the live UK network, through a series of prototype devices. As a PTS (Personal Track Safety) holder he was able to personally conduct, plan and manage trials of equipment on the UK Network throughout autumn 2019.
Professor Roger Lewis is currently RAEng/RSSB Research Chair in Wheel/Rail Interface Low Adhesion Management. He has worked on all aspects of wheel/rail contact tribology for twenty years now, but his current focus is on understanding and modelling the fundamental mechanisms of low adhesion and developing new approaches to dealing with the problem.
Paul Ferriday is the co-owner of a number of businesses which includes Icetech Technologies a company that specialises in the design, development, manufacture, supply and implementation of dry ice cleaning systems to a wide range of industry sectors. He has been working in conjunction with the UOS Tribology department over the past five years to create a solution to overcome the problems associated with low adhesion contact between the wheel/ rail interface.
Dr Joseph Lanigan is an Academic Fellow in Tribology, at the University of Sheffield in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. He has published several papers within the area of tribology. He has unique experience of testing cryogenic rail cleaning systems. He has tested cryogenic systems on the “running railway”. Dr Lanigan has assisted in taking the cryogenics concept from the laboratory scale to field testing. In addition to his experience of rail wheel interface, he is a PTS holder, and has tested equipment on mainline rail.
Contrary to widespread public perception, it is not just a UK problem, it occurs worldwide. For example, in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), in one week in October 2003, only 56% of trains arrived on time and ten thousand delay minutes were accumulated due to low adhesion caused by leaves on the line [4]. However, problems can occur all year round due to the ‘wet-rail’ phenomenon (caused by oxides and water) [5] which is prevalent at dew point in the morning and evening, when environmental conditions lead to the formation of a thin film of condensation on the track.
The annual cost of the leaf problem is reported to be £354 million in the United Kingdom [6] and 100 million SEK in Sweden [7]. Problems also lead to customer dissatisfaction, especially when measures to reduce the problems include timetable changes and
shorter trains. This dissatisfaction can cause a reduction in train use, reducing the clear societal benefits of rail travel.
Presently, the method utilised for cleaning the lines during the autumn season is high-pressure water jetting. These jetting systems are mounted to a specialist fleet of railhead treatment trains (RHTT) operated by infrastructure operators throughout the autumn season in an attempt to remove low adhesion layers. Currently this high pressure water jetting is operating at 1500 bar. To enable jetting at this pressure, a vast 130,000,000 litres of water, equivalent to 52 Olympic sized swimming pools, are required for the 11 week autumn period in the UK alone [8]. With the UK Environment Agency forecasting water shortages within 25 years, it is necessary for alternative technologies to be fully explored.
Treatment train lengths and the advanced route planning prevent flexibility of the system, and therefore treatment is typically restricted to high priority lines, which may result in heavy freight trains ‘slipping’ to a standstill on a gradient.
The method used for addressing adhesion loss in braking and traction is train-borne sanding. Sand is applied directly into the wheel/rail interface from an on-board system. It is applied automatically when a driver selects ‘emergency braking’ and at the driver’s discretion when adhesion loss occurs in traction. There are a number of problems associated with sand application including its effect on damage to wheels and rails, its impact on traction detection through isolating the wheels from the rails and the residue left around the track infrastructure.
The University of Sheffield in collaboration with Ice Tech Technologies UK have developed a novel technique for railhead cleaning that has been demonstrated to work with a variety of low adhesion causes including leaf derived ‘black layer’, rust (iron oxides) along with grease, diesel fuel and moisture. Validation of the cryogenic spray technology for cleaning rail infrastructure, has been conducted through a series of fully funded research projects, totalling in excess of £1 million, from small scale lab based testing to live network testing in 5 locations, funded by RSSB, Arriva Rail North and Network Rail R&D.
The process has been designed to replace high-pressure cleaning using water jets and other traditional methods that use materials such as sand, glass and plastic as abrasive agents as well as the wide range of cleaning methods that involve the use of hazardous chemicals and solvents. As the process is completely dry and non-conductive, dry ice can be used where other methods are unsuitable; for example there would be no danger for point-operating motors, or to condition monitoring equipment. Similarly, there is no danger of the loss of electrical contact between the wheel and the rail that is a concern when sand is used. The cleaning process is low cost, flexible and therefore can be used in place of classical railhead treatment trains and devices.
Carbon dioxide gas, the gaseous form of dry ice is viewed as a waste product by many industries and is vented to atmosphere. The carbon dioxide used in the railhead cleaning process is recovered from these third party industrial processes, such as fertilizer and bioethanol production, and compressed under a reduced temperature to create liquid CO2, where it may then be safely stored (e.g. a CO2 fire extinguisher). Using a pelletiser, the liquid CO2 is expanded and mechanically compressed to produce dry ice pellets.
The technique cleans by blasting the contaminated substrate with dry ice pellets in a flow of compressed air moving at supersonic speed. The unique feature of dry ice is that it sublimes on contact with the surface to be cleaned. The cleaning takes place via three different mechanisms (figure 1):
1. Surface cooling: this embrittles any surface contaminants which then shrink/ crack, and the adhesive bond between them and the rail is weakened or broken.
2. Kinetic energy input: the energy of the pellets and the air contributes to contaminant removal. This removal through impact will be enhanced if the cooling effect has additionally weakened the adhesive bonds between the contaminant material and the rail surface.
3. Sublimation: as the dry ice pellets impact on the surface to be cleaned they change from their solid state to a gaseous state, with an associated volume increase of about 800 times.
As reliably creating low adhesion under realistic railway conditions in a laboratory environment is a challenging task, it was necessary for the technology to be trialled representative railway conditions.
Initial field trials funded by Arriva Rail North were conducted over 12 sessions during autumn 2018 on a low traffic freight line prone to heavy leaf contamination. Typically no treatment is conducted on the freight line, although it is notorious for low adhesion, to the extent that it is used for TOC (train operating company) low adhesion driver training. The equipment was scaled to enable mounting on a Type B rail track trolley, as shown in image 1. Although treatment speed was limited to walking pace, it was an opportunity to regularly clean a black leaf layer.
The trials were shown to be a great success, with the blackened leaf layer being visibly removed (image 2), particularly in the running band on each treatment date (twice weekly November - January). The blasting nozzles
have been specially designed to optimise the cleaning effect within the running band. However further work is required to increase the cleaning width, such that, the entire railhead can be cleaned with a single nozzle.
To demonstrate how the application could be successfully used in the field, the cryogenic cleaning equipment was mounted onto a road rail vehicle (RRV) with collaboration from the light rail operator Stagecoach Supertram (Sheffield). The cleaning equipment was mounted on the flatbed of the ‘multicar’ RRV, while the basting nozzles were mounted on the rear rail wheel axle. Mounting in this manner ensured that when in road transport mode, the nozzles were lifted clear and protected but were ready for use as soon as the vehicle mounted the rails. The equipment was trialled on a heavily oxidised track in the Supertram depot (image 3). The running band was effectively cleaned in a single pass, at an operations speed of 10 mph. Image 4 shows a still taken from one of the nozzle cameras, showing the running band being cleaned, but also the removal of water from the railhead, present from heavy rain on the day of the trials.
Figure 1: The three mechanisms of dry ice cleaning.Trials of the RRV mounted cryogenic cleaning equipment took place during autumn 2019 across the UK network in 5 locations on both passenger and freight lines (figure 2). These trials were conducted at an increased travel speed 10 mph (maximum permissible for an RRV with a trailer).
For the use as a railhead cleaning device a prototype skid was developed, carrying the air compressor, generator and specialist dry ice blasting units developed by The University of Sheffield. The skid was constructed for ease of use, both during transport and on site. All components were securely fastened to the skid, which was fitted with hydraulic outriggers, meaning the skid could easily be mounted onto existing road rail trailers (image 5), propelled by typical RRVs. An electrical control box could quickly be connected and removed, enabling remote operation and monitoring of equipment from the RRV cab. Wireless cameras provided a live feed of each nozzle cleaning the railhead
In order to assess the effectiveness of the technology, photographs of the railhead before and after treatment, along with railhead swabs from both contaminated and clean rail were taken throughout the trials. Where possible this was conducted every mile. The RRV was stopped with sufficient distance from the sampling site to allow for acceleration up to the treatment speed of 10mph when crossing, the sampling site. After the site had been passed, treatment was stopped until photographs and railhead swabs had been taken.
Railhead swabs were chemically analysed though X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). This was initially conducted for a ‘blank swab’, which never came into contact with the railhead to obtain a blank reference signal for the species present on the filter paper. This XPS analysis allows the chemical composition of the ‘blank swab’ to be established, so that when swabbing for railhead contamination, there can be a distinction between which species are present on the swab before it touches the railhead, and those that have been transferred to it from the railhead. The percentage atomic content of each species present on the ‘blank swab’ is displayed for comparison against the results of the railhead swabbed before treatment and after treatment. The results from two locations have been selected for reproduction here, however the trend was confirmed by the other trial sites and therefore have been omitted for repetition.
It was noted by both University of Sheffield staff and Network Rail mobile operations managers (MOMs), that during the selected time for treatment, there was little leaf contamination evident on the railhead. It is understood that the weather conditions,
including heavy rainfall, limited the formulation of the leaf layer. Some contamination (level 1) was identified. Image 6 shows that this leaf contamination was effectively removed from the railhead, before (a) and after (b).
The conditions during and prior to testing meant that the railhead did not have a large amount of leaf layer contamination on, and this can be evidenced by the XPS analysis of the swabs taken. The percent atomic content of each species present on the railhead is displayed in figure 3 for the central running band. The blank reference swab data has been included in each of these figures for easy comparison.
It can be seen from this data that there is a similar trend in the species detected before and after treatment. Prior to treatment analysis reveals that across the width of the railhead, there is presence of low adhesion causing chemical species in the form of loosely bonded iron oxides evidenced by the presence of iron (Fe) and some of the oxygen (O) species, but no identifiable evidence of leaf contamination. In addition silica (Si) and aluminium (Al) are easily identified, with the silica likely to be from sanders or traction gel applicators (identified as SiO2 ) and aluminium from the protective foil used to wrap the sample. carbon (C) and oxygen (O) species as mentioned earlier are present on the blank swab.
Comparing the before and after measurements across the railhead, it can be clearly seen that the low adhesion causing iron oxide species have been successfully treated, as the iron species have been completely removed from the running band to almost undetectable levels on the upper most surfaces of the railhead (10-15 nanometres). At the edges the quantity was significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated, which is a result of nozzle position having been optimised for the running band.
The same is true for the silica (Si) as the presence is still observed either side of the running band – indicating that traction gel is still present either side of the running band. The cryogenic cleaning beam width is yet to be optimised to cover the whole railhead, however, has been set such that it is aimed at the running band. The current primary cleaning width is approximately 15 mm, with some secondary, less intense cleaning spreading wider than this. Both zones can be seen to be cleaning in figure 8. Here, the leaf contamination has been effectively removed from the running band, but also wider afield, with only minor residue remaining.
The swab results for one of the other test sites, at Deepcar, gave similar results to those at Oban/Connel and these are shown in figure 4. Image 7 shows images of rails at the Deepcar test site the before and after treatment indicating that the rail surface has been cleaned.
It can be concluded that the cryogenic cleaning equipment successfully removed low adhesion causing species from the railhead such as Iron oxide(s). This was confirmed across a variety of trial sites throughout the UK. Visual inspection and chemical analysis confirmed that these species were removed from the railhead. Trace amounts remained in some cases at the edges of the railhead, where the blast stream has not been optimised for maximum cleaning width. Across all trial sites during the autumn 2019 season there was found to be very little leaf contamination present on the railhead at the time of the trials. This was seen to be a national trend, due the heavy rainfall limiting the movement of leaves. An additional or extended trial will assist in
Image 1: The track trolley mounted equipment in use on a low traffic freight line in South Yorkshire.
Image 5: The RRV trailer mounted cryogenic cleaning skid in operation.
Figure 3: XPS analysis of railhead swabs, left – blank swab, centre – rail before treatment, right –after treatment.
In addition to the recommendations made above for further work on the RRV mounted system(s), it is important to note that future work should include trialling at higher speeds. The operational speed has been restricted by the Network Rail rules and regulations for RRVs. Trialling of the equipment on board an RHTT or MPV would not only allow higher speed treatment to be trialled, but also on board production of dry ice from liquid CO2, enabling greater distances to be treated without re-filling.
At the time of writing, plans for further trials and an updated prototype to address the issues raised are being formulated for final testing during autumn 2020. Furthermore, opportunities for trials at higher speed and onsite production of the CO2 are being identified. Discussions are presently taking place with regards to establishing suitable manufacturing facilities for the developed system.
[1] RAIB, 2010, ‘Station Overrun at Stonegate, East Sussex 8th November 2010’, Rail Accident Report 18/2011.
[2] AIB, 2013 ‘IC4 Train Set Passed Signal at Danger at Marslev’, Accident Investigation Board Denmark, Report HCLJ611-2011-23, 30/08/2013 [available online from http://www. havarikommissionen.dk].
building confidence that the technology was also capable of removing a typical leaf layer.
The cryogenic cleaning equipment performed well overall; some teething issues were identified such as the importance of weatherproofing. The RRV trailer mounted skid system was found to provide extra flexibility through the self-loading nature, meaning that the transport logistics across the country were simplified.
A method of providing a quick raise and lower of the nozzle bar would have been an advantage during the on/off tracking process. In addition, although the width of the cryogenic blast stream was aligned with the running band and therefore narrower than the full width of the railhead. It was shown that from the chemical analysis, the edges of the railhead were benefiting from the cleaning process except in rare cases where the
railhead condition was poor. It is therefore recommended that the cleaning width of the cryogenic technology should be increased and made such that curves and cant have less effect of the alignment.
The supply and quantities of dry ice was found to work well. Deliveries to site were arranged through IceTech Technologies UK, while University of Sheffield staff transported sufficient to start the testing in each location. It is recommended that for further trials/roll out that a pelletiser system which can produce fresh dry ice from liquid CO2 be used for the more remote locations. This would enable a single liquid CO2 delivery to be made with the equipment delivery and quantities could be adjusted depending on the weather conditions. It was noted during the use of the trial equipment that a more refined system would be required for the loading of dry ice into the blasting unit hoppers to minimise risk of exposure and manual handling.
[3] RAIB, 2013, ‘Buffer Stop Collision at Chester Station 20th November 2013’, Rail Accident Report 26/2014.
[4] Bahnnews, 2003, http://bahnnews.bplaced. net/archiv/bernov03.htm, accessed 23/5/18.
[5] White, B.T., Nilsson, R., Olofsson, U., Arnall, A.D., Evans, M.D., Armitage, T., Fisk, J., Fletcher, D.I., Lewis, R., 2017, ‘A Study into the Effect of the Presence of Moisture at the Wheel/Rail Interface during Dew and Damp Conditions’, Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, Proceedings of the IMechE, Part F., Vol. 232, pp979–989.
[6] RSSB, 2018, ‘Trial of Sander Configurations and Sand Laying Rates’, T1107 Project Report, Issue 1.
[7] Olofsson & Sundvall, 2004, Proc. IMechE, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, Vol. 218, pp 235-242.
[8] RSSB, 2018, ‘Managing Low Adhesion, AWG Manual, Edition 6, Adhesion Working Group, © Rail Delivery Group 2018.
Figure 4: XPS analysis of railhead swabs; left – blank swab, centre – rail before treatment, right –after treatment.The Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) is a public sector undertaking (PSU) corporation run by the government of India’s Ministry of Railways to undertake planning, development and mobilisation of financial resources and construction and maintenance and operation of the new DFCs (dedicated freight corridors).
Under the eleventh five year Plan of India (2007–12), the Ministry of Railways commenced new DFCs routes namely, the Eastern and Western freight corridors. The two routes cover a total length of 3,360 kilometres (2,090 mi).
GQFC has six proposed DFCs; two having been implemented early as mentioned above. The funding for the remaining four was approved in January 2018. The GQFC consists of the rail routes linking the four largest metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata and the two diagonals North-South dedicated freight corridor (Delhi-Chennai) and East-West dedicated freight corridor (Kolkata-Mumbai). These carry 55% of Indian Railway’s freight traffic over a total of 10,122 km (6,290 mi) route length. See image 1.
• East-West dedicated freight corridor - 2000 km from Kolkata to Mumbai.
• North-South dedicated freight corridor2173 km from Delhi to Chennai.
• East Coast dedicated freight corridor, 1100 km from Kharagpur to Vijayawada.
• South-West dedicated freight corridor, 890 km from Chennai to Goa.
The line capacity utilisation on the existing highly saturated shared trunk routes of Howrah to Delhi on the Eastern corridor, and Mumbai to Delhi on the Western corridor varied between 115% to 150%. The increasing requirement for electrical power generation required heavy coal movement, booming infrastructure construction and growing international trade which led to the conception of the GQFCs. Carbon emission reduction from these DFCs will help DFCCIL claim carbon credits.
Western dedicated freight corridor (Western DFC) is broad gauge (5 ft 6 ” / 1676 mm) connecting India’s capital, Delhi and its economic hub, Mumbai. This corridor will be 1483 km in length and will be electrified with double line operation. A single line branch is proposed from Pirthala to Tughlakabad.
Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor (Eastern DFC) is broad gauge (5 ft 6 ” / 1676 mm) connecting Ludhiana in Punjab and Dankuni (near Kolkata) in West Bengal. The route will mostly have double tracks. It will be electrified with the section from Ludhiana in Punjab to Khurja (Bulandshahr) in Uttar Pradesh (400 km) being a single line electrified due to lack of space. This freight corridor will cover a total distance of 1839 km.
The project will be funded by a loan of $4bn provided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency under special terms for economic partnership (STEP). The remaining funds will be provided through equity by the Ministry of Railways.
In May 2013, a consortium of Larsen & Toubro and the Japanese firm Sojitz was awarded a $100.97m contract to design and construct the 640 km twin-track line of the western DFC.
The consortium was additionally awarded a $450,000 contract to supply and install 25kV, 50Hz electrification equipment on the 915 km Rewari-Vadodara section of the Western DFC in November 2014.
Image 1: Golden quadrilateral freight corridor (GQFC). Image: DFCCIL.
The work included construction of seven traction substations (TSS), of which one is GIS-based, 40 switching sub-stations, and 897 track km of overhead line equipment (OLE). It also includes a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system that works at 12 stations
Kirkland CEng MICE, FPWI PWI Vice President (North England Sections)Phil is an experienced Railway Engineer of 47 years continuous service, beginning in 1973 with British Rail in Newcastle and more recently retiring as Head of Maintenance Delivery at Nexus Metro (Tyne and Wear PTE).
Phil has worked in the rail industry worldwide, specifically in the areas of track inspection, maintenance, renewal, mechanised maintenance, high output systems, railway rules, regulations, policies, processes and all safety matters.
AUTHOR
Phil
and an operational control centre, along with the supply of all associated equipment. Traction power and auto transformers, as well as copper conductors for the project will be imported from Japan.
In August 2015, Express Freight Consortium consisting of Mitsui, IRCON International and Tata Projects won a contract for track-laying and civil engineering work on two sectors between Vaitarana in the State of Maharashtra and Vadodara in the State of Gujarat.
The consortium led by Hitachi and consisting of Mitsui and Hitachi India won a contract worth $27.13m for the supply and installation of signalling and telecommunications systems for Package 5 of the Western DFC in December 2015. Hitachi will produce key equipment for the signalling system, while Mitsui will provide overall co-ordination with DFCCIL and related agencies in Japan and India.
Hitachi India will procure and supply locally made products. The consortium was also awarded a contract worth $9.19m to supply and install an automatic train control system for Package 5A of the Western DFC in December 2015.
Construction of the two corridors will transform the way freight is transported in India. The DFC lines are being built for maximum speeds of up to 100 km per hour, compared to current average commercial freight speed of approximately 25 km per hour. The lines will also have a carrying capacity for 6,000 to 15,000 gross tonne freight trains with a 32.5-tonne axle load. The DFCs will allow much shorter transit times from the freight source to its destination. In some cases, the delivery time will be reduced by more than 50%. Increased volumes of cargo will be transported faster, cheaper and more reliably. The Re-build Railways Plan also includes measures to improve the overall safety of India’s railway system, with the introduction of innovation and technology, such as a joint
venture with Australian company Track IQ, who will provide sensor-based systems to detect rail defects. An ambitious target to reduce accidents by 50% over two years has been set by Indian Railways.
The DFCs were designed as heavy-haul traffic lines for 32.5 tonne axle load. Trains with double-stack cars (two maritime containers on top of each other) will travel on a fully 25 Kv electrified line at speeds up to 100 km/h. Several large coal mines and steel production facilities are located along the proposed Eastern DFC line. Container traffic is also predominant along the Western DFC route, arriving mainly from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNPT). By 2022, the port is expected to handle 5.29 million containers annually.
In January 2006, RITES, an internal engineering consultancy set up by the Indian Government, submitted a feasibility report for the two corridors. RITES proposed the route and length of the corridors. The project is being executed in several phases, with significant Japanese input, support and influence. Approximately 67% of the construction costs of the Western DFC is funded by a loan of $4bn from Japan. The remaining funds are provided in equity by the Ministry of Railways. The Eastern DFC is constructed through funds received from the World Bank and the Ministry of Railways.
Phase one included a 920 km segment of the western corridor between Rewari in Haryana to Vadodara in Gujarat, the 105 km Sonnagar (Bihar) to Mughalsarai (Uttar Pradesh) section and the 710 km Mughalsarai to Khurja (Uttar Pradesh) segment of the Eastern corridor.
To their credit, Indian Railways engineers have fully researched and studied overseas railway operations (the very purpose of my series of articles for the PWI Journal), to learn and understand how and why others have chosen certain engineering strategies and policies. Particular focus has been on the Japanese Shinkansen routes, where operations and engineering are deemed to have strong similarities with Indian Railway aspirations. See image 2. A study has also been carried out in the USA and North America.
Indian Railways normally uses a variety of 52, 60 or 90 kg UTS rails in main lines. Standard 13 m rails are depot-welded into LWR (long welded rail), then site-welded into CWR (continuously welded rail) to reduce track maintenance costs and improve ride quality. For the DFC lines, it is planned to introduce UIC 60 and 90 kg UTS CWR, and 60 kg/m HH (head hardened) CWR on curves of less than 2 degrees (875 m radius).
Image 6: DFC Plasser and Theurer (Plasser India) SVM 1000 Single line track laying machine. Image: WCM/Plasser India.
Image 5: Overhead line equipment assembly Eastern DFC. Image: WCM/World Bank.
CWR that has almost no mechanical fish plated joints is the main criteria. Site welding is necessary to convert the LWR into CWR and this can of course introduce weakness, integrity, quality, reliability or safety issues.
Following Japanese practice, four types of welding methods are used for rail welding:
• FBW (flash butt welding)
• GPW (gas pressure welding)
• EAW (enclosed arc welding)
• ATW (alumino-thermic welding).
It is well known that FBW and ATW are used worldwide. The former has high reliability as well as high productivity, the latter has a high mobility associated with it. ATW is the common conventional welding method that enables rail to be manually welded in a relatively short time with simple devices at site. It is necessary to carefully control its quality at point of installation, in terms of both track component condition and assembly, and the weld manufacture itself.
On the other hand, GPW and EAW use has progressively increased in Japan. GPW is widely used in Japan because it has high reliability as well as high workability. EAW is used as the preferred welding method for on-site track welding on Shinkansen lines, because welding carried out by the EAW process has proven to have higher mechanical properties than ATW. The careful control and selection of welding materials is paramount as is training of welding staff and importantly the competent inspection after welding (including such as ultrasonic inspection, magnetic particle and penetrative inspections).
Image 9: The impressive Centralised Train Control Centre, Alahabad. Image: WCM/DFCCIL. Image 8: Newly constructed DFC Permanent Way, alongside the existing rail lines. Image: WCM/ RailwayPro.At the time of construction of the DFCs, all these welding methods will be used, dependent upon site-specific context, requirements and prevailing site conditions. See image 3
Fastenings utilised on main tracks in India are generally elastic-clip fastenings of the Pandrol variety. The introduction of these types of fastenings has enabled Indian Railways to increase line speeds and axle loadings, whilst at the same time reducing maintenance costs. The Pandrol designs and associated insulated assemblies enables the automation of the construction and maintenance process and has therefore been widely used. Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt Ltd, a joint venture initiative between Pandrol and Rahee Group, India’s leading railway infrastructure construction company and manufacturer of railway track products, has established a new manufacturing plant in Hyderabad for the production of fastenings.
The type of sleepers utilised on main lines are PSC (pre-stressed concrete) mono-block sleepers except for ballast-less bridge sections etc. On bridge sections, wooden or steel sleepers have been deployed. The production of PSC components within India should ease and enhance quality control processes. Sleeper spacing is currently at 1,660 or 1,550 per km, (or 30 / 28 per 60 ft). For DFC lines, sleepers are placed at 30 per 60 ft on main running lines and 28 per 60 ft in loops and sidings.
Japanese Railway engineers have begun using FFU (fibre foamed urethane) sleepers for switch and crossing works, bridge timbers and also other sleepers as an alternative to wooden sleepers.
Presently the FFU sleeper is quite expensive but has the following benefits:
• it is light in weight
• has excellent workability like a wooden sleeper
• has a life expectancy similar to that of a concrete sleeper
• has a specific gravity of 0.74 (1/3 that of concrete)
• is free from water absorption and corrosion
• maintains the strength and dimensional accuracy as at the initial installation
• can sustain similar machining works to those of natural wood sleepers (grooving, drilling, grinding, spike-driving, adhesion, and coating)
• FFU sleepers can be used as bridge sleepers for ballastless bridges and solid bed ballastless track ie depot facilities.
(It is highly likely that FFU sleepers will become more common worldwide. In fact, railway administrations such as KiwiRail in New Zealand have recently placed 3 year term contracts for the supply of such sleepers)
Locally sourced crushed stone ballast with a depth of 300 mm (below sleeper) is the requirement for the DCF line construction. On existing infrastructure, the lower layer of ballast, which is called “cake”, has an accumulated thickness of 100 to 200 mm over the years due to mechanical degradation and contamination of the stone under traffic.
This element has to be removed through automatic ballast cleaning. Diagram and table 1 (courtesy of Indian Railways), shows the general ballasting standards applied.
The maximum permissible designed cant (super elevation) is 140 mm and maximum permissible designed cant (super elevation) deficiency is 75 mm.
Minimum curve radius is 875 m, and minimum vertical curve radius is 4000 m. The six foot is 6 metres, the ten foot is 6.25 m between main lines, loops and sidings. Between the DFC and any existing railway, a 7 m spacing must be maintained.
On Indian Railway infrastructure, the permissible speed through the turnout leg is 15 km/h on a conventional switch type and 30 km/h on improved (longer design) turnouts. Design calculations have determined the possible speed through the turnout side on improved curved switches with 60 kg/m rail, 1 in 12 and CMS crossings is 50 km/h. On 1 in 16 switches, it will be 66 km/h. These values are comparable to current operational speeds applied in Japan. It is expected to further increase the passing speed through the switch turnout after revising and updating maintenance standards and railway operational safety regulations.
On the DFC main lines, except on high speed passing turnouts, 60 kg/m rail, 1 in 12 with curved switches and CMS crossings on PSC bearers will be standard. For loop lines and non-running lines, it will be 1 in 8.5 turnouts. Active consideration is also being given to the introduction of swing nose crossings in future to reduce the heavy impact load on the crossing noses. Switches and crossings should be placed wholly on straight/tangent tracks and not within curves or transitions.
All maintenance activities of the tracks are carried out in compliance with the ‘Indian Railway Permanent Way Manual’. The contents of this manual are considered by many to be of a particularly high standard. (It is written in English and Hindi for use throughout the country.)
The ‘Track Diagram’ section specifies the track material (rail, fastening, ballast thickness etc). Maintenance periods are also stipulated, along with the inspections, for example, observation by inspector, track recording cars, which are now digitally recorded on computer. Realignment of track, tamping, ballast cleaning, are all highly mechanised, with more than 800 Plasser machines alone having been purchased by Indian Railways over the years. A number of maintenance depots will be constructed at strategic locations along the DFC routes, necessary, because the movable limits of maintenance machinery is limited. See image 4.
Using multiple sleeper-tampers (09-3X) is particularly effective for new, precision re-laid track. New machine purchases of multiple sleeper tampers for construction of the new track will see these machines cascaded to the maintenance depots on completion of the new works. Rail grinding machines (trains) are also high on the procurement list to maintain the new rails to the highest possible standards. Ballast regulating machines will be distributed in combination with and to supplement the multiple sleeper tampers.
Automatic ballast cleaning is not yet essential or a priority, but thoughts are already focused ahead and the need for high output and associated material handling systems is currently being factored in to the project’s procurement strategies and whole life costing models.
OLE support masts will be 11.12 m in height, with a contact wire height of 7.53 m to facilitate double stack container operations. Detailed studies to find the optimum distance between masts were done taking into account many issues such as blow off by wind, stagger effect, displacement by mast deflection due to wind, depression of track due to poor vertical geometry, track alignments, pantograph
dynamic oscillation and the displacement of the pantograph caused by the cyclic rolling motion of trains.
As a result, a maximum distance between masts of 63 m on straight/tangent was determined. The minimum curve radius on DFC is designed at 875 m which will give a maximum displacement of 181 mm. Extensive studies were done based on train load, speed, route context, structure of mast, etc. As a result of these studies, whereas the conventional Indian Railways OLE consisted of 65 mm 2 contact wire, for DFC this will be increased to a 107 mm 2 contact wire, a substantially enhanced element. See image 5.
Eastern DFC is a broad gauge corridor and routes were required to avoid some major cities and towns due to land acquisition challenges. The Eastern DFC plan includes the construction of 104 major bridges, 368 roadover-bridges (ROBs), 189 road-under-bridges (RUBs) and 21 flyovers. It also includes the reconstruction of nine existing ROBs and the extension of ten existing RUBs.
The Western DFC plan includes a 4 km tunnel, 262 bridges, 33 flyovers, 505 ROBs and 200 RUBs. The western corridor also includes the reconstruction of 24 existing ROBs and lengthening ten existing RUBs. The western
DFC will be used to transport fertilisers, food grains, salt, coal, iron, steel and cement. A total of 211 bridges have been completed and 145 are in progress as of the end of November 2019. In addition, 271 RUBs were commissioned out of 562 and 259 were in progress. Out of 296, 67 ROBs have been completed and 138 are in progress.
The Western DFC will have special headhardened (HH) 250 m, LWR strings using factory-based flash butt welding machines. The axle road of the track will be 32.5 t compared to the existing 25 t axle load used currently on Indian rail tracks.
Construction distances are vast, ie 320 km already completed in 2019. A 626 km, doubletrack corridor will be built between Rewari in Haryana and Iqbalgarh in Gujarat, via Rajasthan, spanning three states. It includes construction of 1,388 km of total track length, including 1,342 bridges, 20 junction and crossing stations and 68,000 m² of building works.
In order to achieve the scale here, automated Plasser SVM 1000 track-laying machines are being used to assist the construction, along with Harsco NTC machinery. The consortium decided to use automated track laying machines and plan to complete the works
in the stipulated time of 48 months. Three Plasser SVM 1000 track laying trains supplied by Plasser India, are working on the largest permanent way project ever in India.
Three NTC (new track construction) machines have been imported from Harsco in the United States for the Kanpur-Khurja section. See image 6 and 7.
Both types of machine mechanically place and space the sleepers (the special rails are imported from Japan) and fasten them down in an automated manner simultaneously, providing precision track relaying and assembly of the highest quality. This approach significantly increases the productivity outputs whilst at the same time reducing time durations on subsequent activities such as top ballasting, tamping and stressing. The rails used are special factory-prepared 250 m long rails that are then welded together using site-based mobile flash butt welding machines, creating a more reliable output and higher quality finish. The machines are able to lay circa 1.5 km of track per day in continuous operation, improving productivity, safety, efficiency, and quality. See image 8.
The project has also built permanent way renewal supporting infrastructure, including eight casting yards for bridge precast works, two concrete sleeper plants for sleeper production, two rail welding depots and two rebar yards for rebar works.
A further 18 batching plants for producing concrete, 18 sand sources to cater to sand requirement and 11 quarry sources to cater to concrete aggregate and ballast requirement are required.
The Sojitz-Larsen & Toubro Limited (India) consortium were contracted to deliver the electrification works for the Western DFC. Sumitomo Electric were subcontracted by the consortium for contact and catenary wires for a section of about 1,340 km of the corridor (total length: circa 3,400 km).
Uniquely, this was the largest order received by Sumitomo Electric in terms of railway projects outside Japan. Sumitomo Electric’s wires were selected because of their seemingly superior durability and heat resistance, as well as the exemplary record of delivery to railway markets in and outside Japan. The installation of OLE equipment is similarly undertaken in a highly mechanised and automated process.
Automatic signalling with 2 km spacing between signals will be used for both corridors. The Ludhiana-Khurja segment of the Eastern DFC will additionally feature an absolute block system.
Traffic control communications on the two corridors will feature an independent
OFC system. A GSM-R communication system will be adopted for mobile train radio communication.
The Western DFC will be equipped with an automatic train control system, which will be based on the European train control system (ETCS) standard, to avoid potential collisions. The signalling and telecommunications equipment will include a train monitoring and diagnostic system to provide centralised monitoring of each train’s position on the track. Electronic interlocking equipment will be installed to control signal lights and points, which will ensure the safe operation of trains. Level crossing warning systems will be activated automatically when a train is approaching. All applications will be linked through telecommunication systems. See image 9.
The project will use single-stack containers on the Eastern DFC and double-stack containers on the Western DFC. The containers will be hauled by a mix of electric and diesel locomotives relative to route haulage (tractive effort, tonnage, speed, gradient and braking) needs.
The maximum speed of all locomotive types will be 100 km/h. The trains running on the Western DFC will be 7.1 m-high, 3,660 mm wide, and between 700 m and 1,500 m long. They will have a carrying capacity of up to 15,000t each. See images 10 and 11
Over the past 50 years, weather-related disasters have caused some 800,000 deaths globally, and more than $1 trillion in financial losses. We have already seen the impacts in our own areas here in the UK, and this is becoming an increasing area of focus and challenge for all railway engineers worldwide. Adapting to this new norm will require some serious resources. With only a two degree warming scenario, the world would need to invest $13-27.5 billion every year to enhance the resilience of existing and new infrastructure. And just like other infrastructure sectors, railways are under increasing pressure from climate risk. In fact, World Bank experts estimate that rail accounts for 18% of the total estimated infrastructure costs.
India’s DFC’s program provides an example of pro-active adaptation. In a bid to anticipate and minimise the impact of weather events, climate considerations have been factored into the project right from the design phase. The implementing agency and its partners have had to pay special consideration to three types of risks that are of particular concern along the routes, these being: fog, temperature variation and flooding.
Fog reduces visibility and hence in turn reduces speed. There is also an increased risk to those people crossing live tracks, sadly
a very regular occurrence in India. DFCCIL is investing in ETCS and will add track security and anti-trespass fencing in known high risk areas. ETCS Level 1 enables trains to keep running safely at their normal speed even in poor visibility conditions.
India’s extreme temperatures affect the rail infrastructure in many ways, from rail breaks, misalignments, buckles to changes in tensile and compressive stresses. The project team had to define critical temperature thresholds and identify which emergency actions to take when a specific threshold is reached. The DFCCIL plan is to move toward a “predict and prevent” model, using measures such as remote CRT monitoring sensors, installed directly on the tracks to monitor rail stresses in real time and provide alerts and early warnings.
Significant monsoon flooding is a frequent occurrence and real concern in India, with millions of people affected every year. Running along two major rivers, the Yamuna and the Ganga, the project is particularly vulnerable to flood risk. Flood inundation historical records, anecdotal data, surveys, maps and site specific design flood estimates have all been considered in defining critical thresholds.
Looking to drive increased mechanisation in track maintenance, Indian Railways have acquired a set of five new track maintenance machines from Plasser &Theurer India. The new machines enhance the existing, impressive fleet of over 800 Plasser and Theurer track machines supplied to Indian Railways over the years.
The splendid shopping list of new machines recently specified and acquired includes, three new 09-3X dynamic tamping express machines, one RM 80-92-U automatic ballast cleaning machine and one Unimat 4S switch and crossing tamping machine. Of course the new Plasser 09-3X dynamic machine can now measure pre and post track geometry, tamp and correct the track to the required geometry and tamp three sleepers simultaneously.
Like all tamping machines, the 09-3X machine will vibrate and compact the loose stone ballast under the sleepers and correct horizontal and vertical track geometry. Additionally, it can dynamically stabilise and measure post tamping track parameters under load to ensure the quality of the work done. This eliminates the requirement for a separate DTS machine, reducing operating costs and track possession time. Further this highly mechanised approach eliminates previous manual track quality measuring after maintenance, and provides assured track handback data and reports.
The new Plasser Unimat 4S switch and crossing tamping machines are of the very latest generation for track geometry correction
of turnouts and are designed to lift and tamp all the four rails in a turnout simultaneously. Indian Railways has planned for complete mechanisation of inspection, monitoring, relaying and maintenance of railway track, with a transition to complete mechanised maintenance by 2020 on trunk routes and by 2024 on the entire network of Indian Railways. Also high on shopping list in future years for the new lines as heavier maintenance becomes a requirement are high output ballast cleaning machines and associated materials handling wagons, along with autoballaster type hopper wagons and LWR trains.
The proposed numbers and investment costs for such sophisticated on- track equipment, serves only to underline and emphasise the scale and size of the Indian Railway network. (I suspect an indian edition of the much loved ‘On Track Plant’ UK publication could prove to be quite voluminous!).
The sheer size and scope of the Indian Railway’s GQFC Project is truly difficult to grasp and this article hardly scrapes the surface. Undoubtedly Indian Railways have come a long way, determined a clear forwardthinking vision, and secured funding to deliver and then got on with the job using the most sophisticated of modern permanent way engineering equipment and techniques. We must pay credit to their endeavours.
This (none too technical) article has again been written with an aspiration to perhaps prompt, challenge and inspire our younger rail engineering members, students, apprentices, supervisors and engineers to further research matters as part of their wider understanding and education.
Additionally, whilst the author accepts no liability for content or content accuracy, such learners are free to use or part-use the paper for CPD or portfolio-building purposes.
In addition, here are some suggested study prompts for those learner/reader groups:
1. What factors may determine track structure, sub-structure and choice of components?
2. What factors may in fluence the type and size of turnouts used on any given route?
3. What is the difference between the Plasser SVM 1000 and Harsco NTC machines?
4. How does do the SVM 1000 and NTC work, and why might they be selected for a track renewal?
5. Research the following types of rail welding and understand the differences in each process:
FBW (Flash Butt Welding)
• GPW (Gas Pressure Welding)
EAW (Enclosed Arc Welding)
• ATW (Alumino-Thermic Welding)
6. What components are used in the assembly of OLE systems?
Indian Railways DFCCIL Double stack container train. Image: WCM/AlcoS.A multi-year study was conducted on an eastern United States railway embankment to quantify the benefits of geogrid and ballast drains in remediation of ballast pockets in a high embankment. A 30 ft high, 500 ft long section of an embankment had ongoing problems with soft soil shearing and the development of ballast pockets, resulting in chronic and excessive deformation that required weekly track maintenance prior to remediation.
Dynamic loading from heavy axle load trains was a major contributor to this problem in the low strength embankment clay fill, as the ballast migrated downward and mixed with the clay fill in response to the cyclic loading of the train. After a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey identified ballast pockets up to 7 ft in depth, a layer of geogrid between the ballast and the subgrade, along with ballast drains in the subgrade fill, was installed in late 2012. This resulted in an immediate improvement in the embankment performance, reducing the track maintenance cycle from weekly to yearly.
After monitoring the test for five years, the track was surveyed and the subballast/geogrid interface was exposed and examined along with a drain functional assessment, with positive results. After 65 months (at 17 MGT/year) of heavy axle load traffic, the geogrid was found to be in good condition with no damage observed in the loaded zone, and it continued to support the ballast near the track surface. Only one tamping operation was needed per year initially, slowly increasing to several times per year after five years.
It was concluded that in the study area, the utilization of geogrid and ballast drains could reduce the track settlement and extend track maintenance cycles significantly. This article describes the problem, solution, and results of this study.
Class I freight railroads in the United States spent more than $2 billion on ballast maintenance in 2017. [1] Ballast provides vertical support and lateral stability needed to resist track geometry degradation. Fine-grained soil embankments composed of clay are frequently moist or wet because of the high affinity of fine-grained soils to retain water. This reduces the shear strength of the embankment matrix. Without any geotechnical amendments, freshly placed ballast can migrate downward into and mix into the clay, developing into a low- strength, high void ballast pocket that retains water, further reducing mid to upper embankment stability. This is problematic particularly in dynamic railway environments. However, a combination of ballast drains plus effective geotechnical amendments that reduce ballast pocket development are designed to produce a ballast mat type foundation that restrains ballast movement both vertically and horizontally.
An eastern U.S. heavy haul rail location had ongoing track geometry problems on a 30 foot high embankment, which was constructed sometime near the beginning of the 20th century. The embankment had required weekly ballast maintenance for many years.
Stephen Wilk Senior Engineer Transportation Technology Center Inc.
Stephen is currently a track structure engineer at Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI) working on substructure, special trackwork and instrumented wheelset research. He recently graduated with a PhD. in Geotechnical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a research emphasis on railroad bridge transition zones. Steve received a BS in Civil Engineering (Structures emphasis) from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities and a MS in Civil Engineering (Geomechanics emphasis) from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities.
Colin J. Basye
Principal Investigator Transportation Technology Center Inc.
Colin is currently a Principal Engineer at Idaho National Laboratory but spent seven years as a railroad geotechnical engineer at the Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI) working on ballast and subgrade research. Prior to TTCI, Colin spent over a decade as a geotechnical engineer for various consulting and testing firms. He graduated with a BS and MS in Geotechnical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines.
Image 1 shows the layout of the study area and embankment. The red line represents the 500 foot long area where the geogrid was placed, and the yellow short lines represent ballast drain locations. The large blue groundwater discharge zone is a perennial spring that produces about eight feet of hydraulic head difference from one side of the embankment to the other.
The embankment settlement was influenced by several factors; fine-grained soils that
compose the embankment fill along with moist to wet conditions caused by an average of 35 inches of seasonal precipitation, embankment uptake of water from a large perennial spring adjacent to the track and development of ballast pockets with a characteristic bathtub effect in the subgrade zone. This bathtub effect is characterized by the presence of an undifferentiated mixture of ballast and clay material that retains water in the embankment center and decreases the shear resistance of the surrounding clay fills. This results in outward and downward progressive shear of the clay embankment materials as dynamic train passage forces act on the substructure. The track generally follows a nearby river. The northwest side of the track is bounded by a steep mountainside, with a large spring lying adjacent to the embankment base area on the uphill (northwest) side, labeled “North Side” in image 1. The water from the spring is drained via a shallow ditch that parallels the base of the embankment and is eventually routed to the river.
Image 2 illustrates the ongoing problem of weekly track geometry degradation before remedial measures were installed. Not only was lateral displacement occurring, but the problems with vertical displacement and settling resulted in the need for weekly ballast placement, tamping, alignment, and shoulder work.
An Association of American Railroads (AAR) research car mounted cone penetrometer (CPT) and rolling load deflection measurement instrumentation was twice utilized in this project; once during embankment characterization in 2011, and again in 2014 to assess subgrade stiffness condition after remediation. Although each set of tests was limited during field work implementation, each assessment resulted in the conclusion that the subgrade was relatively competent in most areas, interspersed with soft zones associated with ballast pockets.
GPR was also used on the test area in 2011 and 2014 in order to assess initial conditions and to measure remedial improvements in the embankment. GPR assessments confirm the reduction in moisture content in 2014 in the
ballast pockets after the 2010 ballast drain installation, even though precipitation levels were much higher in the two weeks preceding the 2014 GPR run compared to the 2010 run. See figure 1. GPR was also used to identify the deepest ballast pockets for the selections of ballast drains.
Two solutions were chosen to address remedial issues in the embankment. Triaxial geogrid was selected to help stabilize the upper embankment (ballast/subballast) while ballast drains were selected to stabilize the mid embankment.
Geogrid was chosen as an experimental remedy for this site to test its effectiveness in mitigating downward and outward ballast deformation. The geogrid forms a soil mat foundation as it goes into a tensional state and it engages with the ballast. The geogrid was placed immediately below the tamping zone depth, but as high in the section as possible in order to mitigate ballast movement. The 13 ft, 1.5 in wide triaxial type geogrid was installed on top of the subballast after the track was removed and the subballast graded to -12 in from the final bottom of tie elevation (Image 3).
Since the ties are 8.5 ft long, the geogrid was symmetrically exposed for about 27 inches or so on each side of the ties. The track was placed on new concrete standoff blocks for rough height adjustment and then new ballast dumped around them prior to tamping and alignment.
Ballast drains were installed in two areas identified by GPR, and CPT data was merged in order to utilize data from multiple sources to aid in targeting and confirming locations of deep ballast pockets sites for remediation. Drainage of these areas would lower moisture levels in the clay matrix at the ballast pocket/ clay interface. This would increase the clay shear strength in the embankment mass and would also reduce embankment shearing. The use of ballast drains is common practice to remediate ballast pockets. Although they cannot drain all of the individual ballast pockets (since ballast pockets form an uneven or undulating subsurface interface), they provide a general improvement in the bearing capacity and shear resistance of the soil matrix.
Ballast drains were installed in the areas that the CPT and GPR results indicated had high moisture content in image 4. The inset in image 4 shows the thin horizontal blue, green, and red lines that represent a continuous GPR profile for the right, center, and left GPR antennas, respectively. The vertical multicolored thicker lines represent tip resistance for the CPT. Blue zones represent soft soils; green and yellow areas are intermediate stiffness. The GPR and CPT data turned out to be highly correlated with the excavation cut-wall soil exposure during ballast drain excavation.
Image 4. Ballast pocket exposure targeted by GPR and CPT results.
Image 3: Geogrid placement and track restoration.
Figure 1: Ground penetrating radar results comparison showing lower track center moisture after ballast drain placement.
Ballast pocket drainage began immediately after drain placement, and although flow was initially high, it gradually slowed after several weeks. However, it continued at lower flows for the life of the test. The ballast drains appear to have improved the stability of the midsection of the embankment mass based on reduction
in maintenance frequency of ballast section. However, the ballast pocket basal profile, plus the presence of a large surface spring adjacent to the north side of the embankment, probably contributed to higher than normal levels of moisture in the mid to lower embankment regions.
Three methods were used over the duration of the test to monitor the effectiveness of the geogrid at the ballast/subballast interface and ballast drains. Track geometry was the ongoing method of degradation assessment, followed by telltales which were used with the remedial installation, and finally embankment survey pins, which were installed in 2015 to provide information on embankment movement in one 80 ft long area that was exhibiting continuous low-level deformation.
Figure
Image
It was noted in bi-yearly visits over the 5 year life of the test that anecdotal ballast dump and maintenance frequency had gradually increased, but was still well below the original level of maintenance needed before the test (figure 2). Also noted was that the measured stiffness of the embankment had not changed appreciably when measured with the TLV, and relative moisture levels had dropped significantly.
Semi-annual visits and assessments revealed that the ballast drains and geogrid systems were functioning as planned with little deviation. However, settlement was observed in the mid to upper embankment section (image 5) in early 2013 after about eight months of traffic. Telltales, which are essentially a settlement rod measurement system, were installed at the base of the ballast section to determine whether the settlement
was occurring in the ballast layer or below the ballast layer. The results revealed that most of the settlement was occurring below the geogrid in the mid to upper embankment zones.
A survey grid was installed on both sides of an 80 ft section of the embankment, to monitor slope surficial creep and embankment movement, and to better understand the dynamic force environment in a soft soil embankment (image 6). The survey grid consisted of a set of five, 1 ft long survey pins (1in diameter rebar) driven approximately 3.5 feet into each embankment slope on a 5 ft × 4 ft grid, spaced 10 feet apart in all dimensions. A conceptual image of the site layout is presented in figure 3, which also shows survey monument layout on each side of the embankment, conceptual groundwater conditions and movement and deformation of the slope towards the south over 5 years. Total slope surficial deformation (creep) at the base of the slope was only a couple of inches over the test period, but the mass involved is significant when settlement at the much smaller dimension of the top of embankment is considered.
The hummocky profile of the south side of the embankment also had become noticeably accentuated over the life of the test (image 7), leading to the prospect that mid- to lower embankment deformation was a major contributor to the track geometry deterioration and the need for more frequent maintenance. Deformation was especially noticeable on the lower half of the embankment, which can be indicative of outward shearing of wet finegrained fill of the interior of the embankment, in addition to surficial soil creep caused by freeze-thaw factors and surface raveling.
Survey Grid Results: An optical survey was performed on the two grid sections during three site visits over 18 months.
Figure
Image 5: Ballast section thickness increase after six months of traffic, compensated for mid-to upper-embankment settlement. 3: Embankment conceptual diagram with survey pin array. 6: Survey grid array on north slope crest.After analyzing the survey results, it was found that the south side of the embankment exhibited greater embankment deformation (identified by slope creep), than the north side, where the spring is located (Figure 4).
In addition to embankment deformation, it was also noted that periodic track realignment, ballast placement, and other maintenance activities had affected the orientation of the geogrid over the 5 year time period. It was observed that as the embankment sheared outward and downward, it pulled the upper ballast section and track with it. When maintenance was performed, the track was lifted, realigned, and raised back up to its design elevation, being supported there by new ballast.
Over the test period, the maximum horizontal geogrid migration was measured as approximately 20 in, and the maximum vertical migration (following settlement of the embankment) is approximately 19 in on the south side.
Strain elongation of the geogrid averaged approximately 3.2 in, which is well under the maximum design strain of 10 percent. Strain was not consistent over the mobile area and varied from 0.94 percent up to 6.25 percent.
The test section of embankment was reinforced by geogrid for 500 ft and terminated in an area that was adjacent to the spring on the north side. Although the clay fill embankment was
noted to be only about 15 to 18 ft high at the geogrid terminus, it still may be influenced by clay matric potential (wicking) issues in the mobile zone and increased clay shearing, in addition to hydraulic head driving forces. During the site visit in 2017, embankment cracking and downhill displacement was noted in a zone spanning the geogrid terminus (image 8).
This test site has provided an opportunity to study the combined remedial effects of ballast drains and geogrid in a heavy axle load environment. As a result, track maintenance was extended from weekly to yearly following remedial installation, with gradual deterioration of the improvement reduction over time. These remediation methods also have reduced ballast loss, thereby improving longevity and stability of the railroad track.
The geogrid performed as designed over the test duration, as there was no structural failure of the geogrid or the ballast drains. The presence and performance of geogrids in railway environments in shallow subsurface locations can offer increased resistance to ballast pocket development and higher load bearing strength of the upper embankment area. It is also resistant to degradation under dynamic loading. However, care must be taken in its application with respect to potential issues deeper in the embankment.
After five years of railway traffic on the 15 annual million gross ton (MGT) line, performance is well above pre- remedial conditions as embankment maintenance is currently still needed only monthly to quarterly. Gradual reduction of system performance has been noted due to movement of the mid to lower embankment, which was not addressed during the geogrid and ballast drain installation. This work demonstrates that a combination of upper embankment stiffening measures and drainage improvements can provide cost effective remedial measures for correcting problems caused by ballast pockets.
The AAR and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sponsored this study as part of the Track Substructure and Heavy Axle Load Strategic Research Initiative. The authors thank Norfolk Southern Railway, Tensar Corporation, and Hyground Engineering for their support in this research.
1. Class I Railroad Annual Reports, to the Surface Transportation Board: For the year ending December 31, 2017 (includes selected track accounts from Schedules 330 and 410).
2. Basye, Colin and Li, Dingqing. “Soft Subgrade Support and Ballast Pocket Remediation on a Railway, TD- 15-030, American Association of Railroads.
3. Basye, Colin and Linkowski, David. “Stabilization of Ballast Pockets with Geogrid in a Railway Embankment, “TD-17-034, American Association of Railroads.
Figure 4: Slope creep and embankment deformation, along with geogrid displacement over five years.
Image 7: Comparison of embankment face profile after construction and after five years.
The design, fabrication, installation and maintenance of S&C involves a complex array of measurements within the layout, all intended to ensure the installed and soon to be maintained article remains as close to its design as possible. Each step of the process has varying levels of intricacy ranging from new cast pieces measured to 0.01 mm accuracy right up to the assembled panel where build-up tolerances such as rail curving, drilling, cutting, rail to seat placement, centre hole placement or panel alignment affect the precision of the layout. This article aims to provide guidance to inspectors, designers, maintainers and those who are generally interested in this topic on the correct way S&C should be inspected through its intended life cycle to avoid the inevitable comment: “It didn’t look like that in the yard?” It will also discuss other factors that often get overlooked during the development of the design. The subject of switch and crossing inspection will be covered in two parts: Part 1 comprising of design and prefabrication and part 2 including installation and maintenance. The intention is to ensure there is a link between the two parts. Therefore, part 2 will summarise the full cycle.
S&C configuration selection in most cases is predetermined by track standards or by a mandated specification based on the track category. When schemes with non-generic requirements such as direct fix trackform, non-railway engineering
permanent way (REPW) designs or highly space constrained layouts are to be designed, finding a solution that best fits all its intended functions becomes difficult.
The system compatibility, reliability, maintainability and constructability all play a part in varying measures making the selection process of the design factors more difficult as technology advances. Of course, in addition, assessing the construction and operational safety of the design options is paramount. How the components are handled and replaced and the layout design itself all affect the inspection activity and are part of this decision-making process.
When problems arise on site we revert to the design. Rarely nowadays do we hear of prefabrications or installations going wrong in a big way. This is mainly due to the level of assurance designers and suppliers apply to make sure the manufacturers’ 1:50 drawing matches the 1:200 general arrangement and that the 1:200 works on site. Best practice involves the final design being verified or set-out to help identify errors in design or survey. By allowing for track movement between the survey date and the setting out dates, we can assure ourselves the layout will fit. When it doesn’t, we simply check to see where the error could be occurring.
We should also consider a full topographic survey of the as-fabricated layout and verify this with the design and on site. This has proven to be very effective in the past on TfL sites. Most suppliers undertake a setting out check for their own quality assurance records and have the ability to share
AUTHOR
Darren Sharp CEng ICE/FPWI Permanent Way Consultant
Darren has 30 years experience within permanent way engineering covering design, innovation, manufacture, renewals and maintenance. He has worked for British Rail, Scott Wilson, Jarvis, Transport for London and various consultancies. Darren has worked mainly for London Underground over the last 20 years being involved with project engineering management and as the principal engineer for S&C.
this data with the installation team to perform this check if agreed. This gives the added assurance that what was built works in the ground to a certain degree of accuracy. Not all installation contractors and S&C suppliers undertake this level of verification as a matter of course and consideration should be given to specifying the appropriate checking processes within any new tenders.
The relationship between the scheme designer (design body responsible for the initial general arrangement incorporating the alignment) and layout designer (S&C manufacturers designer) is vital to the delivery of the intended design. From time to time you hear of layouts when drafted in 1:50 using the prescribed REPW lead rail design geometry not correlating with the original 1:200 CAD design file. This occurs when true tangential geometry is used by the scheme designer against the standard secant design of REPW turnouts. The variance is increased when the through radii is tightened. Recently canted layouts and those with tight vertical geometry have also been replicated at the pre-fabrication stage. For canted switch panels this helps to prove the POE (points operating equipment) is able to achieve the required switch fit and flangeways within its operating range. For example, some point machine installations will struggle with
sufficient power on canted track above 25 mm when operating from low to high side. Obtaining a fully closed switch along the planed length and the correct flangeway are all affected by the additional drive force required on canted switches. The arrangement to cant the layout should be agreed at the design stage with the supplier.
Other construction types require differing levels of pre-fabrication requirements and inspection checks. Image 1 shows a guarded turnout panel layout for NYCT (New York City Transit). The extended bearers are for the cess walkway and structural support on the elevated structure. The use of FFU (fibre reinforced foamed urethane synthetic wood material) here is guaranteeing a level fabrication and installation when the panel is supported on the girders of the structure. The need to inspect the bearer straightness when supported on a structure is critical to achieve the correct elevation.
This section sets out how the configuration defines the requirements for fabrication inspection measurements.
Each configuration and construction type introduces its own risks in terms of achieving the build quality required for S&C. For example, the introduction of tie plated modular units presents an additional risk that the tie plate itself is not seated centrally thus affecting gauge and possible check gauge or flange way passage (FWP). This can occur at prefabrication or on site where rail fixtures prevent any adjustment when built as part of a complex layout. This was observed on a LU (London Underground) layout where acceptable tolerances for the verticality of the end face of the bearer within the tie plate joint were not defined, resulting in a gap that was too tight and therefore only just managing to achieve the required gauge tolerances of +/-3 mm. When this occurs opposite the crossing nose the tighter tolerance of the check gauge or FWP come into play with +2. -1 mm tolerances making this very difficult to attain. Image 2 shows a complex arrangement of tie plates where check gauge can be compromised by non-centred tie plates. In this example however, the lessons learned from previous layouts ensured the modular joint on the bearer end allowed the plate to fit providing the design gauge within 1 mm.
Once the configuration is agreed the method of inspection and testing will follow, taking into consideration the build-up of the layout. For example, with non-ballasted/direct fix layouts there is no gauge or rail plane control and variance in construction height will need to be allowed for by ensuring a level layout for measurement is achieved. Table 1 lists the inspection criteria against the three main configuration types. Light green signifies a requirement to inspect and dark green indicates that the inspection is more critical.
The supplier must then ask the question; “If I take up all the tolerances in the yard, how is the installer and maintainer going to cope?” When new products are designed, the system integrator is responsible for managing these risks. Hazard identification at component, sub-assembly and full system assembly is paramount at the design selection stage to avoid the chosen option becoming unmaintainable. Undertaking a maintainability analysis to ensure all components can be restored to their full operating condition is something we tend to carry out for new products. If we were to apply this process to our current standard suite of designs, we may find ourselves rethinking the design and fabrication methods used. Using this process can help define specific issues such as the ideal location for tie plates, welds, cast shoulders and other bearer mounted furniture which affects the buildability and maintainability of the layout.
Table 2 shows various examples I have experienced that have led to discussion topics in the past and where possible, introduced improvements to the design, prefabrication or installation process.
It is all very well listing these risks along with the appropriate countermeasures to be put in place, however, the important part of the process is to communicate the issue to all users via briefings or O&M manuals. Lessons learned tend to pick up these issues where
they are not envisaged at the development or design and planning stage. This also includes the manufacturers’ pre-fabrication team. The intention with this being to avoid repeating errors and the associated pain experienced by multiple contractors or organisations installing and designing S&C who have not always shared these lessons learned. Having a log capturing these issues from concept to commissioning is therefore vital.
It is common practice that the only person to have full awareness is the project engineer who is involved from concept to handover. LU
produced a switch system O&M manual for full system integration covering the point machine, mechanical supplementary drive and detector, switch panel and all associated parts such as stretcher bars and soleplates. In doing this the interactions and the responsibilities between the track and signals technicians could be clearly defined.
To measure the performance of the switch when operated under power, measurements such as flangeways, switch to stock rail fit/gap, gauge, slide to switch rail gaps and free wheel passage are taken on both normal and reverse
positions once the switches have thrown over 50 times or more. This enables any potential set up issues to be raised and also ensures the fully installed and operational POE system meets the required standards. Testing of LU layouts in 2008 highlighted the need for a test to be performed with the switch rails disconnected from stretcher bars and POE to assess their flexural performance. This test developed into the free switch test to assess the switch in its un-connected free state and whether any spring force resides within the rail due to over or under curving at manufacture. Each switch rail is barred open and closed at the drive point at the toe. Table 3 contains form F5554 that is included within London Underground standard T0435 – Prefabrication inspection of junction work. It is worth noting that this should be performed with the switch rollers not in use and on a level plated turnout. Testing of over 50 turnouts lead to the agreement of the main acceptance criteria for achieving a natural flangeway greater than 30 mm.
In order to gain acceptance for a fabricated direct fix layout, the rails and plates need to be presented to enable full measurement, clash checking and functional testing of the switches with the points operating equipment (POE) installed and operated on power. Holding and bracing rails to their alignment and gauge to avoid movement during POE testing or whilst inspecting is critical and is dependent upon the design being used. In-street tramway (no sleepers or bearers) or direct fix layouts with no restraint from weight, tend to use jig and rack bracing as shown in image 3. These are limited in size where large layouts become difficult to pre-fabricate using this method. Breaking up the layout into individual panels can then introduce other risks where the full layout cannot be inspected in its entirety.
Cast crossings
• Cant measurements being taken on nose topping.
• Xing Vee baseplates installed with room within seat on field side for gauge to widen under load.
• Bearer spacing and squareness from panel lifting causing incorrect gauge within crossing.
• Gauging of S&C training provided to surveyors, engineers and installers.
• Select correct baseplate type to ensure tight fit on housing on field side to avoid gauge widening.
• Panel mark-up includes squareness string line to replicate panel squareness.
Eliminating slip and trip hazards whilst inspecting the layout is also crucial for the safety of the inspections team.
Stock and switch rail
• Incorrect drilling of distance block positions causing incorrect switch to stock fit.
• Switch rail has excessive spring or does not fit against stock rail.
• Switch rail twisted on slide plates –with and without POE fitted.
• Ball and claw not central.
• Surveyors measuring gauge prior to POE install when switch has a residual opening.
• Stock fronts not square and incorrect longitudinal positioning in relation to switch tips. Measuring squareness is not always accurate.
• asure all stock and switch drilling positions as part of inspection.
• Use LU free switch inspection test at pre-fab and install.
• Check rail inclination with feeler gauges. Layouts to be laid on level ground with no more than 2 mm slide plate gaps.
• Measure panel squareness, ball and claw gaps and settings.
• Close up switch with clamps. Revised RSO standard does not allow greater than 2mm RSO.
• Measure front and toe squareness, heel squareness, identify lead rail. Design requires better indication of this. Use squareness laser. Mark up heel square line on panel.
Distance blocks
• Incorrect distance block offset.
• Switch foot fouling distance block bolts.
• Twisted distance blocks causing switch foot to foul (old bull head design).
• Torsion control bolt not maintainer friendly.
• Measure rail offset from EOP to heel. Measure gaps between closed switch and distance blocks.
• Design of new domed bolt and reduced thickness distance block. Foot relief also amended. Inspect closely.
• Modified design with increased clearance to closed switch foot.
• Change of fastener type for maintenance shimming/replacement.
For larger layouts, using temporary hardwood bearers to gauge, obtain rail plane, support and align the baseplates is a common method, though does create a high amount of wastage. This does rely upon a level floor and any difference in construction height will require varying depths of timber. In some cases, it may be decided that the temporary timber bracing is used to brace every fourth or fifth bearer prior to concrete pour. This can present problems when trying to remove post pour as it introduces cold joints that can lead to cracking. It is understood that a method in which layouts can be pre-constructed for inspection using permanent light weight bracing which remains in track is being explored at TfL. Composite plastic and concrete materials are being considered for this application and will potentially provide a huge benefit to reducing install times and obtaining the design alignment. Image 4 shows a Delkor resilient baseplate layout using temporary bearers to enable inspection.
To summarise the process for gathering the appropriate evidence to gain approval for the layout design and pre-fabrication, figure 1 details the steps to be taken and evidence to be obtained. This forms part of the project assurance plan and engineering deliverables.
LVT Sonneville blocks
• Incorrect screw bolt used causing the block to crack.
• Tilting of slide plates blocks at prefab and install affecting switch fit and rail inclination.
• Switch tips sitting above slide plates post-installation.
• Added to O&M (operation and maintenance) manual and guidance briefed to staff on LVT systems.
• Blocks correctly wedged at pre-fab and jigs modified for install. Jigs trialled at pre-fab.
• Complete free switch test as part of pre-pour alignment tests. Also applied to Delkor.
Resilient direct fix baseplates
Shallow depth baseplates
Concrete bearers
Modular tie plates
• Heel plate position not fixed affecting heel angle offset and squareness.
• Stock rail has too much lateral adjustment in slide plate seat causing gauge variation between pre-fab and install.
• Heel bearers out of square or wrong longitudinal position causing switch heel angle to be incorrect.
• Coil washers not installed causing premature failure of bolt.
• Incorrect bolt length installed causing bearer cracking.
• Incorrect torque applied causing joint or concrete to fail.
• Bearer end pads not installed.
• Bearers skewed or stepped at install.
• Design placement of tie plates at joints or locations where twists can occur, avoid using short single rail bearers.
• Track standard did not specify how many missing or defective screw bolts are permitted.
• Modify design to include a rail anchor to fix first heel plate position longitudinally.
• Amend design for slide plate to include reduced rail seat area and include e-Plus clip to reduce rail role and gauge variation.
• LU design change introducing anchor plate at first heel plate on all designs.
• Most issues here were dealt with by producing an O&M manual and briefing note to staff.
• Design guidance issued to avoid plates being installed at joints and avoiding the use of short single rail support bearers.
• Track standard S1158 updated to reflect this requirement under maintenance inspection.
Conductor rail
POE
• Insufficient room or clashes for insulator pot drillings or slipper runs
• Incorrect offset or alignment of insulator pot holes.
• POE and soleplate orientation.
• Hand of directly driven rail (Surelock)
• MSD crank handing.
• Stretcher bar to switch rail bolts.
• Pot hole detail and clash checks performed at 1:50 using assembled parts. Slipper run support holes also included.
• Issues with handing of insulation and rail potential addressed under bulletin and drawing updates.
• Changed to Hardlock to avoid inconsistent supply.
The advances in using 3D scanning and digital twin replication will allow the layout to be digitally modelled at the prefabrication stage enabling verification of the installation to a greater accuracy and detail. Use of these technologies for maintenance inspections and corrective work to restore the physical layout to its original design will assist in prolonging the life of the asset by avoiding the loss of the true geometry and individual parts. This can make switch and crossing welding/grinding, positioning of welds/joints, turnout geometry rail wear and materials ordering far easier to manage. The 3D model contains measurable data making this a powerful BIM tool. When coupled with O&M manuals, defect history records and follow-up maintenance works undertaken, it will help to provide a holistic approach to asset management.
This part 1 article has identified key inspection issues for the design and prefabrication stages of providing switches and crossings and has given appropriate guidance for how they can be addressed.
Part 2 of the article will be published in the July Journal and will cover the issues and requirements for inspection during the installation and maintenance phases.
Rail rectification is a well-established process in modern rail asset management that has proven to extend the life of rails and wheels in different railway systems worldwide. Traditionally, rail grinding is used to manage rail degradation by applying different strategies such as preventive or cyclic maintenance.
Another available maintenance technology is the relatively young but worldwide used and accepted rail milling technology. In contrast to the abrasive grinding process, milling is a rotary cutting process that is capable of low as well as substantial metal removal rates in one milling pass. Rail milling can reliably and efficiently correct the rail condition almost independently of the level of degradation. Therefore, this technology can be applied for the before mentioned strategies as well as for corrective or restorative approaches.
By comparing rail grinding and rail milling, it can be seen that the limitations of one technology can be compensated by the strengths of the other and vice versa. This article will specifically look at milling applications examples in heavy haul and transit environments with a focus on the first milling operation in North America. How milling is used to successfully restore a degraded rail (mainline track and switches) to an “as new” condition is highlighted. By combining traditional rail maintenance strategies with advanced rail milling technology it is possible to create integrated, modern rail asset management that will maximise rail life while at the same time minimising operational and maintenance costs.
Intense train traffic combined with increasing axle loads cause profile degradation of rails and wheels by wear and cyclic plastic material flow. Thus, the surface of rails and wheels is deteriorated by rolling contact fatigue (RCF) defects like head checks / gauge corner cracking, crack networks on the running surface, shelling, spalling and squats. Defects like corrugation or wheel-burns can add additional damage by increasing the dynamic loads in the wheel-rail interaction system. To keep this system in a safe and operational condition, maintenance activities are mandatorily required to prevent premature rail exchange. Rail surface and profile rectification is nowadays a well-established process in modern rail asset management and can be executed using different technologies and strategies.
This article is focusing on two widely utilised maintenance technologies; rail milling and rail
grinding with rotating stones. As these two technologies have the broadest application field in rail maintenance globally, other technologies like grinding with oscillating stones, high speed grinding, rail planing and rotational rail planning will not be discussed in this paper due to their minor application.
Rail grinding (with rotating stones) is currently the most frequently applied technology for rail maintenance and has been in use since the early days of railway operation. Rotating grinding stones (rotation around the vertical axis – see figure 1) are pressed onto the rail surface at fixed angles between +20° (field side) and - 70° (gauge side) during the continuous forward and backward motion of the machine. Depending on the size of the machine (4 stones up to 120 and more stones) low to medium metal removal rates can be achieved in one machine pass. The transversal rail profile can be adjusted by changing the angles of the grinding stones, producing several overlapping facets (traces of the longitudinal movement of the grinding stone) resulting in a slightly polygonised profile shape (see figure 1).
This maintenance process produces characteristic grinding marks / grooves along the rail profile. The surface finish and profile tolerances are defined e.g. in EN 13231-3:2012 [1] or the AREMA standard [2]. Typical processing speeds can vary between 1.8 – 10 mph (3 – 15 km/h). Special track work like switches and crossings can also be treated by grinding. However, dedicated switch grinding machines are required for such a task. Rail grinding is well suited for maintenance activities requiring one or a few machine passes. With every additional pass (e.g. due to high metal removal requirements) the resultant process speed is significantly reduced. The heat that is produced during the grinding process may cause unwanted material transformations in the topmost layer of the rail head resulting in “white etching layers” (martensitic layers on the rail surface) that can act as a starting point for new RCF defects [3].
A characteristic of the rail grinding process is the formation of dust and sparks. This can be a problem in sensitive areas like tunnels or stations resulting in unwanted pollution or fire danger. In dry environments rail grinding can be restricted or even completely banned.
Milling of work pieces has been used since the early 19th century due to its high geometrical accuracy and resulting surface quality (compared to grinding processes). The relatively young rail milling technology was introduced about 25 years
Richard Stock LINSINGER Canada
Richard Stock is Milling Technology Manager for the Austrian Companies LINSINGER and LINMAG based out of Vancouver, Canada. He has held this position since April 2017. Before that he worked for almost four years at L.B. Foster Rail Technologies in the friction management area as Rail Technology Manager, also in Vancouver. Between 2002 and mid 2013 he was employed by voestalpine in Austria (rail production) where he served in the departments of R&D and Technical Customer Service. Richard holds a Master’s Degree and a PhD (both in material sciences) from the University of Leoben in Austria.
Since 2019 Wilhelm Kubin has been employed by the Austrian Company LINSINGER in the R&D department. Before that he studied at the University of Leoben in Austria. He holds a Master´s Degree in mechanical engineering and a PhD in material sciences. During his study he worked at the Materials Center Leoben Forschung GmbH (MCL) in Austria. His fields of research were the numerical analysis of rolling contact fatigue influenced by surface roughness and the numerical analysis of the rail milling process and its potential for the reduction of rail defects.
This paper was first presented and published at the AREMA 2019 Annual Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 22-25 2019. www.arema.org
AUTHORS
Wilhelm Kubin LINSINGER Austria
ago by the Austrian company LINSINGER. It can be described as a rotational cutting process (figure 2) that results in the formation of metal chips that are collected and stored on the train for recycling. The resultant profile is defined by the shape of the milling tool (tool holder with cutting inserts) and is fixed for each set of tools. For changing the target profile a different milling tool is required to be installed on the train, which can be done very quickly. Larger milling trains with multiple milling units per rail can have different sets of tools installed on each milling unit per rail. This allows an uninterrupted transition from one profile to another. Achievable profile quality is typically at least half of the required tolerances of EN 13231-3:2012 [1] or AREMA [2].
The milling process is completely spark and dust free which allows applying this process with limited or no special precautions in environmentally sensitive areas like tunnels, stations or zones with general fire restrictions / bans. The generated process heat is transferred into the milling tool and the metal chips. The machined rail surface experiences no significant heat input [4]. Therefore, any unwanted material transformation like “white etching layers” is presumably prevented. The milling process produces a distinctive surface pattern that can sometimes cause temporary noise effects in a transit environment. For this reason, milling trains are equipped with a completely enclosed finishing unit (a longitudinal grinding wheel with a slight offset angle in reference to the longitudinal rail axis).
This optional process provides an extremely smooth surface finish of the target rail profile. The process speed of rail milling may vary between 1312 ft/h (400 m/h) up to 6560 ft/h (2000 m/h) of finished/maintained rail (dependent on machine type). Besides, a milling machine can process main track as well as special trackwork like switches and crossings. No dedicated switch-milling machine is required for such a task.
Due to the variable one pass metal removal capability of rail milling, it can be used for low metal removal scenarios as well as for scenarios that require the complete removal of deep rail damage or the correction of severely worn rails. Besides, rail milling trains are typically equipped with measurement systems that document transversal and longitudinal rail profiles as well as the damage condition (electromagnetic technology). This results in a very well defined and documented rail condition after the rail milling process.
The maintenance technologies presented above can be used to implement different maintenance strategies to extend the life of rails and track.
In this scenario (this cannot be classified as a maintenance strategy), no maintenance actions are implemented and the rail life is purely dependent on the wear behavior or the damage (e.g. RCF, corrugation) development rate. Figure 3 shows a simplified damage development curve over time / tonnage (MGT). When a new rail is installed in track it takes a certain amount of time until damage is initiated and starts to grow. As soon as the damage depth / rail wear has reached a safety critical limit, the rails must be exchanged. In this scenario, rail life is purely influenced by the rail grade and its resistance to wear and damage development, the type of damage (different damage types show different development and growth rates) as well as other factors like track geometry or friction management. This “no maintenance” strategy is the least preferred scenario with typically the shortest rail life.
For all subsequent maintenance strategies an initial maintenance activity is included immediately after or soon after the installation of a new rail. With this low metal removal step, possible damage caused by the rail installation as well as the “decarburized” layer (the so-called rolling skin or mill scale, a thin low hardness layer on the rail surface cause by the production process) can be removed. This ensures a damage free initial rail condition (figure 4).
For a corrective maintenance scenario, damage is allowed to grow until it reaches a defined corrective maintenance threshold with respect to its depth. Typically, this threshold is chosen in a way that several corrective maintenance interventions can be done during the lifetime of the , and that the rail damage does not pose any safety risks. For this approach medium to high metal removal rates are required to set the topmost layer of the rail back to a “good” condition (figure 5). A “good” rail surface condition is almost damage free and typically allows some low defects to remain in the rail surface after a corrective intervention. With such a strategy the rail life is significantly extended compared to doing no maintenance at all.
In the case of cyclic intervention, rail maintenance is conducted in regular intervals based on time or load (MGT – million gross tons). Usually these maintenance intervals are based on experience and are chosen so that the developed damage can be economically treated within these intervals with the given maintenance technology (figure 6). Typically, medium to low metal removal rates are required for damage removal. With this strategy, it is also the aim to set the rail back to the “good” surface condition classification (allowing for some low damage to remain on the rail surface).
A preventive maintenance strategy aims for frequent interventions with very low metal removal rates (figure 7). Damage will be removed at a very early stage, right after it has been initiated. With such an approach the artificial wear rates (wear caused by rail maintenance) will be very low and the rail will remain in an almost damage free “good” surface condition. For this strategy it is mandatory to have the measurement technology in place that can measure the actual damage condition to determine the next required intervention date. If such a measurement technology is not applied a preventive maintenance strategy will change into a cyclic-preventive strategy where the intervention thresholds are based on experience and MGT.
Operational, financial and/or external factors beyond control may force railroads to deviate from their proven maintenance strategy and allow for damage to develop deeper into the rail material. In this case a technology is required that can not only correct the rail surface condition but restore the rail surface to an “as new” condition (figure 8). Almost independent of the actual condition, the rail damage is completely removed and the transversal as well as the longitudinal profiles are restored. This will allow the infrastructure owner to return to the established maintenance strategy and thereby prevent premature rail exchange resulting in a maximized rail life.
Usually railroads will have to apply multiple or combined strategies. Railroads will thrive to reach a cost-effective scenario like preventive
Figure 2: Principles of rail milling with rotational cutting tool.Figure 3: The “no maintenance” strategy – rail life is only dependent on wear rate and damage development.
Figure 4: Initial rail maintenance right after rail installation to provide a damage free surface condition.
Figure 5: Corrective maintenance strategy – rail maintenance is done when damage has reached corrective threshold depth.
Figure 6: Cyclic maintenance strategy – rail maintenance intervals based on MGT or time threshold.
Figure 7: Preventive maintenance strategy – frequent interventions with low metal removal to keep rail surface in “good” condition.
maintenance. However operational and financial restrictions beyond the control of railroads may force railroads to deviate from the preferred strategy. In such a case an adaption of the current strategy is required until the desired/required surface condition is restored.
After discussing maintenance technologies and maintenance strategies, the following sections will analyse specific application examples to highlight the practical implementation of rail milling with the aim of rail life extension.
ARTC (Australian Rail Track Cooperation) is operating the Hunter Valley coal network in Eastern Australia. Typical yearly tonnages vary between 45 MGT (individual branch lines, empty traffic) and up to 190 MGT in the highly loaded track segments close to the port areas [5]. ARTC has a cyclic-preventive grinding strategy in place. However, it cannot completely control rail degradation with this approach. LINMAG Australia is providing
Figure 8: Regenerative maintenance strategy – rail maintenance to reset rail surface to “as new” condition almost independent on initial damage condition.
milling services to address high priority defect areas that previously would have required rail replacement (“no maintenance” strategy). ARTC has widespread shutdowns of their railway system every 6-8 weeks providing maintenance windows of mostly between 62 to 96 hours. LINMAG is milling in each of these closedowns with the highly flexible LINSINGER SF02 Road-Rail Truck (figure 9) focusing on mainline track to remove severe RCF defects and at the same time restore the rail profile according to the desired target profile (restorative maintenance strategy).
As well as classic RCF defects, squats/studs are also a focus of the restorative milling actions. Due to their surface morphology, squat/stud defects can interfere with ultrasound testing by deflecting sound waves. Removing these defects will not only extend the rail life but also restore the ultrasonic testing capability of the rails, thereby significantly contributing to network safety. Additionally, switches are treated with the same milling machine. On the one hand severely damaged switches with RCF cracks as deep as 0.2 in (5 mm) are treated by up to 5 passes of the milling machine. The SF02 Road Rail Truck is equipped with one milling unit per rail that can remove up to 0.04 in (1 mm) of
damaged rail material on top of rail. Typically, at the gauge corner / gauge face higher metal removal rates can be achieved. Beside switch restoration, initial milling of newly installed switches and mainline track in one (low metal removal) pass is also provided to remove the rolling skin and to compensate for other installation related profile irregularities. ARTC is using rail milling as an economic and complementary technology in addition to a cyclic-preventive grinding program.
Irish Rail is the national railway operator in Ireland with a network of more than 1700 mi (2700 km) of track. In 2012, premature rail replacement rates had drastically increased due to limited access to conventional rail maintenance technology caused by their geographic situation (island) and their gauge of 1600 mm (5 ft 3 in). Rails with a potential life of up to 20 years had to be scrapped for safety reasons. Consequently, Irish Rail conducted a system wide eddy current (EC) and ultrasonic (US) survey. They found that most of the damage had a depth of 0.2 in (5 mm) or less with the predominant form of classic RCF (head checks, squats), wear and wheel burns. Due to the nature of the damage, Irish Rail
decided to apply a restorative maintenance strategy followed by a cyclic-preventive approach. For these reasons rail milling was chosen as the most suitable technology. Following a European tendering process, the Austrian rail milling provider LINMAG was awarded a multi-year contract for rail milling. A flexible deployable LINSINGER SF02 road-rail truck was used to restore the rail condition by removing 100% of the damage and create a high-quality transversal and longitudinal rail profile (figure 10).
For the planning of this first phase of restorative maintenance the detailed measurement protocols of the EC and US system sweep were used to determine the necessary passes and allocated time. As part of this restorative phase high and dipped welds were also corrected. As the truck is equipped with a Sperry EC system 100% damage removal can be accomplished. The second phase of the maintenance program started in 2018 and is focusing on cyclic-preventive rail maintenance as well as initial milling of new rails. With every cyclic-preventive milling intervention, Irish Rail has determined that rail life can be extended by 5-7 years. Furthermore, since the start of the integrated milling program the number of broken rails as well as premature rail replacement rates have drastically decreased.
Limited time windows for maintenance activities caused by extended operation hours of metro systems as well as generally increased rail traffic can lead to accelerated rail degradation. Often this accelerated degradation cannot be managed by
conventional rail maintenance technologies. Therefore, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway started looking into restorative maintenance technologies and strategies. As TTC was investigating rail milling technology for several years, they decided in late 2017 to publish the first dedicated rail milling tender in North America which was won by Rhomberg Sersa, North America. The main problems at TTC consist of profile degradation due to cyclic plastic deformation and wear as well as RCF and corrugation. During the first season (winter 2018/2019) of this multi-year maintenance program Rhomberg Sersa used an SF02 road-rail truck focusing on profile restoration according to target profiles. Predominantly, one pass operations with 0.03 in (0.8 mm) metal removal were used to correct whole track segments having variable states of rail degradation. As part of this strategy occasional high welds were also corrected. Besides the profile restoration, TTC experienced a huge benefit in the spark and dust free milling operation. Fire crews and extensive cleaning activities of subway stations and tracks were not required preventing additional expenses and freeing resources for additional maintenance work. The milling operation will continue in late 2019 focusing on complete damage removal.
Based on the above-mentioned examples of rail milling, several key criteria for selecting a specific maintenance technology can be deduced. Based on a possibly comprehensive system analysis the actual problems and damage conditions need to be identified in order to determine which general strategy needs to be applied (cyclic-preventive, corrective, restorative). Based on the selected maintenance strategy, the actual production rates for creating a finished track segment (m/h or ft/h) for each technology or machine need to be determined. Looking only at, for example, speed per pass of each technology will not be sufficient as different technologies will require a different amount of passes to achieve a specified final result. Besides, it is very important to have a technical specification that clearly defines target profiles (longitudinal and transversal), damage removal requirements, surface accuracy and quality etc. as well as measurement technology for quality control. Of course, economic considerations, environmental conditions and
budget restrictions will have a major impact on the selection of a specific technology. It is very important to have objective (technical) criteria as well as a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses to be able to conduct an “apples to apples” comparison of two very different maintenance technologies like rail milling and rail grinding. Finally, the availability of a technology or a specific machine will also have an impact on the selection process.
Rail milling technology represents a complementary addition to existing technologies in the rail maintenance toolbox. This technology can provide clear economic benefits in the area of corrective / restorative rail treatment. Milling can be applied reliably and efficiently, nearly independent of the level of initial rail degradation, and can also be used for initial treatment of rails. Application examples from Australia, Europe and North America highlight different technology selection criteria and confirm that rail milling can be successfully used as a complementary solution to rail grinding for instance. Premature rail exchange can be prevented, and mainline track, switches and crossings can be treated effectively resulting in a significant extension of rail life.
It is very important that rail maintenance activities represent only one of several influencing factors within the railway system. Together with rail grades, optimised target profiles, track geometry and also friction management measures these key factors will impact the life cycle of the whole system and its individual components. Only by applying a holistic solution that considers all these key factors and their interaction, a sustainable and economic life extension of the whole system will be achieved.
(1) EN 13231-3:2012. Railway applications
- Track - Acceptance of works - Part 3: Acceptance of reprofiling rails in track.
European Standard
(2) AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering
– Chapter 4 – Rail. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, 2019.
(3) Steenbergen M. Rolling contact fatigue in relation to rail grinding. Wear, Volume 356-357, 2016, p. 110–121
(4) Kubin W., Daves W. and Stock R. Analysis of rail milling as a rail maintenance process: Simulations and Experiments. In Proceedings: 11th International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems (CM2018), Delft, The Netherlands, September 24-27, 2018, p. 480-486
(5) Schwarzenberger R. Milling Down
Under: Proven Austrian technology vs. tough Australian rail conditions. Global Railway Review, Issue 5, September 2017, p. 25-27.
Image 1: LINSINGER SF02 road-rail truck operating at ARTC / Australia.
This seminar was held in the Manchester Conference Centre on the 4 March 2020. PWI CEO, Stephen Barber, welcomed the delegates and introduced them to the format of the day, before welcoming the first speaker to take the stage.
Gareth talked about getting the “Best bang for every pound” when explaining that the UK was pledging £550M, and the EU another £820M to research and innovation over the next four years. He touched upon how the full asset lifecycle of the railway would be considered when deciding where to spend the budget. Network Rail will be targeting five key objectives during CP6 which include:
Safety:
• Making improvements in train accident risk by 10%
• Improvements in level crossing risk by 13%
• Improving lost time injury frequency rates by 54%
Reliability:
• Improvements in delayed trains in 2019/2020 by 12%
• Improvements in delayed trains by the end of CP6 by 28%
Efficiency:
• Incremental efficiency savings between 2019-2024 of £3.5bn
Putting people first:
• Improvements to the numbers of women employed by 50%
• Improvements in occupation related mental health absence by 25%
Environmental impacts:
• Improvements in carbon emissions by 25%
• Improvements in energy consumption by 18%
Gareth discussed how Network Rail maps out their ‘Line of sight from risks to solutions’ in bow-tie shaped road maps to improve risk management and inform their funding. Gareth talked about the 2020 vision having three main challenges:
Challenge 1 - Safety challenge: Train accident risk reduction.
Challenge 2 - Performance challenge: Trend is that performance is generally falling against increasing traffic.
Challenge 3 - Innovation challenge. Gareth broke this down further into three key points:
Point 1 - There is a challenge to retain and transfer knowledge which can be achieved through academia-industry collaboration.
Point 2 - There is a need to replace inspections on track with desk-study data collection work as much as possible. This data needs to be open and transparent. To avoid the potential negative industry backlash, unions and people who work on site will need to be brought along with them and engaged in discussions. The workforce can use this to gain new skills. The use of drones should be adopted where possible to avoid hazards.
Point 3 - The use of automation for monitoring assets; one version of an asset register is needed. With one version of the truth, knowledge can be transferred more easily and using a BIM set up for this will allow for data alignment and wisdom can be gained. Gareth talked about the use of Digital Twins for training and inspection purposes.
Point 4 - Climate challenge; Gareth mentioned possible issues with climate change including track buckles, snow, gales, flooding, leaves and electrical component failures. He mentioned that Network Rail are drafting their CP7 track asset policy and this features heavily.
AUTHOR Waterworth CEng MICEAlison is a Chartered Civil Engineer and Project Manager. With a career spanning over 10 years, Alison has worked in many sectors of the transport industry including structures, highways, airports and railways. She has extensive experience leading largescale multidisciplinary engineering teams through all phases of design and construction; from early strategic business case to handover for operational use. Her most notable projects include the M10 Moscow to St Petersburg Motorway Construction, the Forth Road Bridge Cable Band Bolt Replacement project, HS2 Phase 2B ACI JV, and is currently the Project Manager for Northern Powerhouse Rail Manchester to Sheffield corridor.
Alison is an avid promoter of equality and diversity in the industry; speaking at many high-profile events including the Women in Construction Summit and UK Construction Week. She is also the Mott MacDonald Advancing Gender Champion.
Point 5 - Vehicle related challenge – SET Ltd
ActiWheel steered bogies can reduce the weight of a bogie by 2 tonnes and allows for the individual wheels to be steered independently.
Point 6 - Weather resilience:
• Drainage – Test facility can be used for training and system modelling.
• Embankment monitoring; Using track quality data to understand the vertical and lateral movement and to assess the number of false positive readings.
Point 7 - Tools and technology:
• Track decision support tool; Builds a holistic review of track data and plots traces from track recording vehicles. Track maintenance engineers can use this data to predict cycles on the track by wavelength and can make decisions on where to carry out inspections and maintenance.
• ESR/TSR design visualisation tool; Boards can be placed in the software which runs cab driver video footage and conflicts can be highlighted before people go onto site. The software produces images for where markerboards need to be placed.
• Improved rail management technology: CATER ultrasonics / Sperry E-Scan / Rail milling / Induction Welding / FELIX switch profile measurement system / Robel modular grinder.
• Composite materials: The use of composite materials in track can eliminate decay, reduce inspection and maintenance requirements, increase asset and whole lifecycle costs, have non-flammable properties and have the workability and durability of concrete. All beneficial factors.
• Cast crossing additive manufacturing; Benefits include tighter tolerances, eliminates tri-metallic welds, has better performance under degraded track and has increased fracture toughness.
• Discrete defect repair: The use of automatic defect milling and automated weld repairs enables an increase in efficiency, quality and repeatability of repairs. This also means an increase in productivity and removes staff from the track, therefore increasing safety as well.
In summary, Gareth welcomed any help in meeting these challenges and welcomed any ideas which support the ability to manage assets in the future. Let’s be progressive! (He suggested).
Andrew opened his talk by announcing that working on TfL is all about “Logistics, logistics,
logistics” and suggested the greatest challenge they face is around access and space limitations. There are eight main technologies that assist in driving logistics used on TfL assets. These are:
The TAM project is a three-year funded project aimed at predicting the likelihood of low track adhesion using Predictive Adhesion Management Software (PAMS). This is an in-house software which incorporates live Met Office weather and leaf fall forecast data, as well as internal line-side vegetation, topography and rolling stock characteristics. The benefits of this software include the prevention of excessive occurrence of signals passed at danger (SPADS), station overruns and rolling stock wheel flats.
2. SURELOCK POINT MACHINE PERFORMANCE MONITORING - Another real-time monitoring system developed inhouse which provides text alerts to specific maintenance staff and Technical Officers when the system is operating outside the thresholds of calibration data. Each site is independent and processes its own data, avoiding singlepoint failures in the system and removing the reliance upon people to view and analyse data. Future developments to this software include adding improved filters to detect more failure modes, predicting failures more accurately and avoiding false alerts.
3. LIGHTWEIGHT MODULAR
cloud viewers). Time can be minimised on site for inspections as these viewers enable measurements to be taken on screen, rather than on site.
7.
INTERFACE - Platform 2 at Baker Street, the “Mind the Gap” platform, is approximately 150 years old. Half the platform is straight, the other half is curved, leaving quite a challenge with the changing gap. Over the years, TfL have introduced bright blue light strips at the edge of the platform, but people on phones don’t seem to notice these, so other fail-safe ideas are needed. Active and passive gap fillers are being trialled in the next year which will stroke the edge of the platform and allow the train through. Watch this space…
8.
Real time monitoring has been trialled as part of the renewal of the crossovers at Paddington on the Bakerloo Line. Nodes were installed through the layout and the concrete temperature and strength was transmitted to the monitoring system as soon as the concrete contacted the nodes. The use of this technology will enable works to commence quicker within the limited timescales available.
Andrew closed with a hint that TfL are also looking into composite materials for their asset renewals.
Due to the limited space inside the Tube, modular trolleys can be broken into parts and are lightweight for easy handling. These trolleys also use lithium battery technology which are much lighter and provide a longer life.
4. Q-RAIL TUNE MASS RAIL DAMPERS
TfL are currently trialling Q-Rail tuned mass rail dampers between Kentish Town and Camden Town, which are designed to suppress rolling contact noise and corrugation growth by reducing vibration from the rails. These dampers utilise 14 oscillating masses of different sizes which are free to oscillate in both vertical and lateral directions. This technology is already in use in Hong Kong.
5. DRONES/UAV SURVEYS - Data collection is quicker with the use of drones. They are particularly useful where only short access times are available. There are secondary benefits to engineers with these, as imagery is good, and Ortho photos can be overlaid with CAD. This can remove the need for boots on site.
6. IMU (INERTIAL MEASUREMENT UNIT)
DATA COLLECTION - Data such as track curvature, cant and gauging can be collected through using IMUs. An accurate picture of what is in the ground can be built using software such as Truview and Jetstream (point
Nick explained that in the last 13 periods, Network Rail reported 58 near misses involving 158 track workers and 146 operational close calls involving 584 track workers. The riskiest times are between midnight and 11am, with Sundays and Wednesdays seeing higher numbers of near misses. Nick stated that it is better to work with facts rather than anecdotes. He said we should “Delete anecdotes; remove risk.” Referring to the Margam incident, Network Rail has responded by setting the following three key goals:
1. ELIMINATE UNASSISTED
WORKING - There has been a 30% reduction in unassisted lookout working since July 2019. Various technologies are being used to replace track visits including the Eddy Current Tool, Plain Line Pattern Recognition and Remote Condition Monitoring. The aim is to reduce the maintenance standard task reviews to zero by July 2022.
2. 100% ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR TRACK WORKS - Additional protection measures are being introduced in line blockages. Nick is a firm believer in “What gets measured, gets managed”, so he is keen to ensure statistics are accurate and they are building a largescale data set. Up to 25,000 line blockages are taken per period on average
and at Period 11, 17% of these have additional protection. Period 12 had 23%. These protection measures include focussing on the use of TOWS (train operating warning systems) and SATWaS (satellite-based warning system), as well as LEWIS, RDD (reference document database), ZKL TCOD (track circuit operating device undergoing an accelerated roll out) and EPR (engineering possession reminder).
- Each year there are approximately 28 million maintenance tasks carried out by Network Rail, approximately 15,000 per week. Nick says there simply aren’t enough line blockages being used and welcomes ideas from the audience and the industry to put forward any ideas to improve on this. Nick doesn’t pretend to understand the theory behind the algorithms he says can map align tasks to safe work access, but it is something Network Rail are looking into for cyclical maintenance tasks and possession planning.
Nick suggested Network Rail are looking to refresh their safety standards as the feedback from the front line is that the standards are no longer fit for purpose. In the spirit of welcoming everyone’s ideas they are making it easy to do this online or in paper form and this challenge runs to the end of April 2020. Participants will be recognised with personal notes and certificates for those whose ideas are implemented. All ideas welcome…
David opened his presentation by defining asset management as working out what asset is needed to allow the organisation to fulfil its role, then working out the most efficient way to keep that asset working and when that asset can be disposed of. This is a very complex prioritisation exercise when you have many assets. A continuous asset is an asset that can be drawn as a line over a geospatial area. Examples include track, overhead line equipment and cable troughing.
TRACE allows us to illustrate the current track performance by splitting the continuous asset (track) into many discrete assets. Subsequent traces can be added to monitor the performance over a longer period. Turning the trace graph onto its side creates a P to F curve which indicates the performance of the asset over time. If the curve is known, a risk appetite can be applied; this appetite depends on the level of risk willing to be accepted. With this knowledge, maintenance activities can be planned over long/short/medium terms of time. The problem faced is that each discrete asset would need to be analysed individually to create this maintenance schedule, but luckily the Euler-Bernoulli model can help! This is where machine learning comes into play.
Provided with enough data, a computer can learn how to link data points together and by creating patterns, it can begin to predict what will happen next. This can be done at a much quicker rate than a human using P to F curves. At present, this technology isn’t fully developed but David suggested that soon machines will be able to predict multiple metrics data such as dip angles and side wear. This technology will allow for proactive planning, as opposed to the current reactive planning situation we have in the industry.
To start the presentation, Steve reminded the audience that there is a Network Rail surveying standard (NR/L2/TRK/3100) and a project survey strategy should be created by the project manager prior to the commencement of work.
A brief history of Skelmersdale tells us that the old Skelmersdale station was axed in 1956 when the local populace was less than 7000. Today current population is more than 40,000 people and the public transport available takes two hours to get to Liverpool and Manchester and one hour to Wigan. Skelmersdale is the largest urban conurbation in the UK not served by a direct rail connection.
Using Snake Grid and LIDAR, 15 km of pway survey and 14 km of highway survey was able to be captured. Following the motto: “Survey once, use many times”, the survey data is linked back to the Permanent Survey Control Network, ensuring the data can be used in the future for other schemes. Using these technologies to survey, Severn Partnership were able to reduce boots on the ground by 70-90%, their workforce has diversified, quality of data has increased, and the skill sets of staff members have been retained.
Steve closed by saying that “The power of survey data is getting it into everyone’s hands” as he hopes this technology will become the norm for surveying.
Carl described the unique inline excavation and materials handling system which consists of three types of machine and is made up of six machines in total. Together the machines form a group capable of single line excavation but are also capable of delivering several other solutions either singularly or in combination with other machines. The three machine types are:
ITC BL4 ROAD RAIL EXCAVATOR - Used to rapidly excavate bottom ballast on S&C and plain line renewal projects. The inline conveyor system allows material to be fed through the main body onto the rear conveyor system. This rear conveyor can feed the spent ballast into wagons on an adjacent line or into an MFS+ directly behind. The machine features a W6A Gauge, dust suppression system, delivered by road transport, excavation rate 100 to 130m(^3)p/h.
UMH (UNIVERSAL MATERIALS HANDLING)
The UMH are materials handling wagons that can receive materials from either MFS+ or MFS and distribute the material via a series of conveyors. The UMH can also distribute materials to other machines, open wagons or directly onto the infrastructure. The machine features a maximum distribution rate of 400m^3/hr, a maximum skew of 90 degrees left or right, and a distribution of 7 m. With the lower conveyor in the central position, ballast can be directed to the ballast boxes which distribute ballast either side of each rail simultaneously.
MFS+ MATERIAL REMOVAL - MFS+ are tracked MFS capable of travelling by rail but able to move into crawler mode to access the dig area. When in the materials removal mode, two MFS+ work behind the ITC. The first acting as a silo while the second acts as a materials transporter, taking the excavated material back to the MFS rail mounted wagons at the start of the excavation. By reversing the working direction, the MFS+ can receive materials from the rail mounted MFS wagons. As in the removal process, one MFS+ acts as a transfer wagon from the rail mounted MFS, while the other MFS+ acts as a silo and a materials distribution machine.
With these machines, the whole system provides excellent versatility likened to a Swiss army knife. Carl says operators are matched to each individual machine and as part of their service, dedicated planning engineers are integrated with the client to ensure the longterm planning and optimisation of the logistics.
Tom opened his talk with an explanation of the Trafford Park Line; a 5.5 km new light rail scheme within Trafford Park, extending from Pomona Junction to the Trafford Centre. Tom provided the key details for the following four stops:
POMONA STOP - Part of the phase 3 works was to extend the existing viaduct by 200 m to bring the track alignment down to Wharfside. The works also involved replacing the existing 40 m plain line curves out to Eccles with a bespoke double junction.
WHARFSIDE STOP - This section runs adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. There is a total of 15 structures required to get the alignment from Pomona to Imperial War Museum.
PARKWAY STOP - The original plan was to remove the roundabout and replace with a series of junctions, however a value engineering opportunity allowed for retaining as much of the highways as possible.
TRAFFORD CENTRE STOP - The alignment finishes with a terminus island platform, with two crossovers to allow access and egress to either platform. The alignment has been future proofed for potential future extensions towards Port Salford.
The purpose of the project was to stimulate regeneration and economic growth in the area, linking people to jobs and providing viable alternatives to car travel. The business case required a journey time of 15 minutes and through various alignment tweaks in the concept design stages, this was able to be met and improved upon; providing a journey time of just under 14 minutes.
BIM Level 2 requirements meant the use of a common data environment (ProjectWise) and a federated model (Navisworks). For BIM Level 2 compliance, asset tags were needed to be assigned and matched to the work breakdown structure. Clashes were detected within Navisworks. Looking to the future, Tom suggested further development of asset tags could be used for construction and operation. Working towards BIM Level 3 would require all disciplines to work in the same live model; something that might bring one out in cold sweats for now.
Paul opened with an explanation that the findings from a literature review of the comfort threshold for passengers showed that the values varied quite widely and were very subjective. He concluded from this research that he would approach his work using the existing railway as a benchmark for comfort levels relative to a Class 185 ride trial.
Paul carried out ride trials between Manchester Victoria (MCV) and York (YRK) (return) on 29th July 2019. The vehicles and configuration were Class 185 3 cars sets (185142 and 185122) on the Down Line (MCV-YRK) over lead bogie, centre unit of 3-car set, and on the Up Line (YRK-MCV) between bogies, centre unit of 3-car set. The instrumentation used were:
• Accelerations measured in three axes
• Measured at table seats (on table) at the positions described above
• GPS receiver equipment fitted but no signal within carriages!
• Locations (stations, junctions) marked using event marker button
• Perceived ride quality recorded using event market button
• Rising severity Index of 1, 1.5 and 2 adopted
Measurements taken were:
• Mean ride comfort over a 5-minute window
• Continuous comfort over a 5-second window
• Discrete events (both standing and seated passengers), over a 2-second window
• Jerk – lateral jerk between 0.5 to 2 m/s^3
• Test engineer – perceived ride index – the “Allen” Index.
VAMPIRE vehicle dynamics simulations, combined with several ride assessment methods (EN 12299 and others), were used to predict the likely ride comfort on the proposed alignment design (focused on lateral ride comfort). The results were:
• Increased design cant gradients resulted in slightly higher peak Jerk rates in transitions, but this did not significantly degrade passenger comfort
• Increased steady-state lateral accelerations (cant deficiency) were not predicted to significantly degrade passenger comfort
• Due to increased speeds in curves, the proposed Exceptional values negatively impacted ride comfort where lateral track alignment (irregularities) were poor
• Increases in track shifting and peak rail forces were predicted as a result of the Exceptional values
• Derailment indices were not significantly affected
• Lateral jerk values greater than 0.8 –0.9 m/s3 are likely to reduce perceived passenger ride comfort
Paul’s recommendations for better passenger comfort levels included constructing trackbed formation to a high standard when applying exceptional cant, a lateral track alignment maintenance limit value of 16 mm and reducing the effects of track shifting and peak rail forces. All help to maintain acceptable ride quality.
Phil introduced the seminar delegates to the Loccioni Felix; a laser profile measuring machine that carries out S&C gauge and geometry measurements, rail profile
measurements and assessment of switch rail wheel contact angles. Felix provides consistently accurate and repeatable measurements; removing the human factor issues present in manual gauging and produces these measurements at a much higher rate than a person can and at intervals of 2 mm. This means better and more accurate data.
Trials have been carried out on the machine in order to confirm compliance with RIS 1350PLT for product acceptance. The machine also had to be programmed for S&C designs on Network Rail infrastructure as it was made for the Italian infrastructure originally. 35 different switch types have been programmed for identification and recording, covering approximately 80% of S&C installed on the network.
To confirm the accuracy of the readings, the Felix results for P8 profile measurements were compared with Mini Prof readings and the results showed the results were very similar, but Felix’s results were more accurate – to more decimal places. This comparison was necessary in order to obtain the necessary Engineering Certificate of Conformity to enable it to be used on Network Rail’s infrastructure. There are still further steps to take for full acceptance of the equipment, including an ergonomic assessment and calibration testing, as well as carrying out a common safety method – risk assessment for introducing the system. Watch this space…
Muhammad introduced his topic by suggesting that the safest type of level crossing is to not have a level crossing. In the year 2018/2019 there were 73 near misses with vehicles and 308 near misses with non-vehicle users at level crossings in the UK. Statistics show that there is an average of 6.4 fatalities each year in the UK at level crossings. Even the RSSB states: “Level crossings provide communities with a convenient way to cross the railway but do represent a risk to the people and vehicle occupants that use them, and to the railway itself”. CCTV and radar are in operation at most level crossings, suggesting that large scale data collection could provide the necessary information for ‘deep learning’. Deep learning takes artificial intelligence and machine learning one step further; it is the automatic learning and categorising of objects. Using CCTV and radar from level crossings, an analysis of which category of level crossing user is most at threat can be identified, and how the level crossing could be redesigned to address this. The software could also provide details on how efficiently the barriers are working depending on how long they take to open/close.
Muhammad summarised with further applications for deep learning software, including platform risk analysis (crosslines near trains’ doors), categorising users (passengers with bags or bicycles), and even the potential for analysing suspicious behaviour.
DR ELISABETTA PISTONE, VIENNA CONSULTING
Elisabetta opened her presentation with three possible analysis options for track designers. These are:
1. MULTI-BODY DYNAMIC SIMULATION
Currently the most accurate method which allows designers an element of reliability. The disadvantage to this analysis method are that stiffness, damping and mass information is not always available and creates challenging dynamics. This relies heavily on the experience of engineers to produce a solution.
2. DYNAMIC MOVING LOAD ANALYSIS
Simple and accurate with a relatively short computation with no vehicle-track interaction and no irregularities. The disadvantage is that the software requires a dynamic moving load module and a simplified reliability-analysis.
3. STATIC MOVING LOAD ANALYSISRelatively simple and accurate, this analysis uses a spectrum of static to dynamic conversion factors, requires a short computation and no vehicle-track interaction and no irregularities. Elisabetta questioned whether reliability-analysis makes sense with static analysis.
Other considerations in track design are:
THE INFLUENCE OF TRACK IRREGULARITIES - The variations in track quality and statics and variation in velocity and irregularity.
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR AND INFLUENCE OF SOIL MODELS - Weighted and normal dynamic amplification factors to be considered. Elisabetta asked “Is the Winkler model an accurate representation of the semiinfinite elastic half space?”. Before discussing the Fourier Transformation, taking account of the approximation of the frequency dependent soil properties, the Rayleigh wave propagation and the degrees-of-freedom for dynamic analysis.
Elisabetta provided a comparison to the “Extended-Winkler” model with recorded data for ICE2 at v = 160 km/h in similar situations such as weight and geometry.
The measurements were conducted on a section of the high-speed tracks between Erfurt-Leipzig in 2014 by FCP in the context of the project entitled ‘VDE 8.2, New Line ErfurtLeipzig / Halle’ (a part of the new German high-speed track network).
The results produced a good match with CEN/ TR17320: “Railway applications - infrastructure - determination of laboratory test parameters for assessing the mechanical durability of rail fastening systems - complementary element” and with prEN/13230-6: “Railway applications - track - concrete sleepers and bearers - part 6: design”
Elisabetta proposed a novel procedure for designing rail tracks on earthworks using the following:
1. Classification of train (new/old HS train, commuter train, freight train)
2. Classify soil using EV2
3. Get expected top speed
4. Estimate velocity dependent dynamic amplification factor from diagram
5. Assign modified LM71 to your model
6. Perform static analysis
Her future research activities will investigate topics such as the quantification of vehicle irregularities on track response, sophisticated multi-body-dynamic simulation to simulate rolling contact, application to lateral/ longitudinal direction and curved sections, stochastic simulation and sensitivity analysis using extended Winkler model, and harmonisation with en1990.
Giles opened with descriptions of various damages to wheels/rail interfaces including rolling contact fatigue due to primary yaw stiffness, vertical fractures due to speed and unsprung mass, gauge side wear due to long or stiff wheelbases, top wear due to poor curving ability and general wear and tear due to gross tonnage. Giles suggested Network Rail are looking into ways to improve rolling stock performance by producing the train infrastructure interface specification (TIIS). These requirements have been incorporated into the train technical specification for HS2.
Giles suggested the specifications are a means to charge train companies for damaging the infrastructure network. Technologies responding to the track-damage incentives include the following:
INSIDE-FRAME BOGIES - These can reduce the overall and unsprung mass.
‘HALL’ BUSHES - These have hydraulic cavities which ease low frequency movements and stiffen in response to high frequencies. These are becoming regularly specified for new assets, as well as being retrofitted on mid-life fleets.
MATERIALS - Composites are being explored for primary structures as they are lightweight and good on mass and have better maintainability (in theory). The costs of these are still high today.
MECHATRONICS - There are variable primary springs, variable rate dampers and actuators in place of dampers available.
STEERING, WHEEL DE-COUPLING - Passive steering mechanisms are in use, active steering ones may be introduced which would allow for independent power and rotation of the wheels. These are likely to become mainstream in the next 10 years.
Other things Giles suggested will be looked at for future rolling stock will include the way trains will be powered; electrified infrastructure, battery hybrids and fuel-cell hybrids. As part of the de-carbonisation implications, full electrification might stretch beyond 2050 which means the UK fleets may need to utilise a mix of power. Batteries are good for short off-wire journeys, fuel-cells are good for longer off-wire journeys but don’t cater for speed or mass. Mass increases are inevitable with the non-electrified options due to the continued increase in demand.
Giles closed the end of the presentation with the following statement by Mark Kermode: “It will be alright in the end, and if it’s not alright, it’s not the end!”
The coming years will bring a big challenge for the railway. With increasing demand and future growth in travel on the network, the question will be “How can we fit it all in?”. Backward compatibility will be key to meeting capacity needs; retrofitting new technology to an old network and utilising new materials and technologies to capitalise on space whilst minimising maintenance activities. As the modal shift moves towards railway, and with HS2 and Northern Powerhouse projects bringing economic growth to the North, there are exciting times ahead. One key message from the presentations was that safety is paramount, and we should not be complacent – if we can do something better, we absolutely should!
WHICH LOAD MODEL DO WE USE FOR RAIL TRACK DESIGN?
During 2019 I organised a series of visits for PWI members to the London Underground Northern Line extension (NLE). Parties formed of members from the London, Wessex and Thames Valley Sections were able to visit the construction works at the new Battersea and Nine Elms stations in south-west London.
4 April 2019 - Nine Elms station
2 May 2019 - Battersea station
13 November 2019 - Nine Elms station.
At Battersea we were fortunate to inspect the newly installed scissors crossover at the approaches to the terminus. This Cv 9.25 flat-bottom rail layout is installed on Sonneville ‘Low Vibration Track’ (LVT) system. It was noted that the Sonneville LVT ‘booted’ block system is also the track-form in the new running tunnels. These tunnels, being larger in diameter to accommodate emergency services access routes, enable the use of the Sonneville LVT system on the tube network.
We also inspected the construction of the new Battersea station which supports the new development buildings being constructed above by the Battersea Power Station Development.
Two visits were possible to the new station at Nine Elms which is a deep box construction with secant piled walls and ‘Top down’ construction using ‘off site construction practice’. Many of the main structural elements were constructed by contractor Ferrovial Laing O’Rourke at their ‘Offsite’ manufacturing facility at Worksop and then ‘stitched‘ together in situ at Nine Elms.
The challenges of managing ventilation and smoke control were noted at both stations with provision for large fans and vent shafts. At both stations safety pits are installed in the ‘4 foot’ in the platform area with the new LU standard tube track Delkor baseplate assembly.
Professional
The PWI is grateful to hosts Jonathan Cooper (Project Manager) and Danny Owens (Project Engineer) of London Underground for this very special visit.
Photo 1: Nine Elms station.
Paul Ebbutt PWI Vice President (South England & South West Wales Sections)
Development Officer (South)
Photo 2: Battersea – on top of the station box.
Photo 2: Battersea – Scissors crossover
On 13 February 2020 in Brussels, Belgium, UIC held the “Low-carbon mobility: making modal shift desirable” conference. The event was dedicated to promoting the vision of multimodal transport for passengers and freight and to share initiatives that have already been taken by UIC in this direction. It attracted professionals and policy decision-makers from around Europe. The conference was opened by Mr Simon Fletcher, Coordinator Europe and Chief Standardisation Officer, International Union of Railways. Mr Fletcher, chair of the conference, conveyed a message from Mr François Davenne, Director General of UIC to participants of the conference. In this message, Mr Davenne expressed his view on the current situation with transport and the negative affect that is caused by transport on the environment, his concern about the finite of natural resources and importance of frugality in the railway industry. Mr Davenne said “…we have to reduce emissions using the technologies that are at hand now. The most secure way to do this is to avoid current emissions by promoting a modal shift to the modes that are the least emitting, namely railway, public transport and soft mobilities…”.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the transport industry have significantly increased over the last twenty years and now it is the second major contributor to carbon emissions after the energy industry. World-wide transport is responsible for around 20% of pollution, and it is the only one major sector where the absolute amount of pollution continues to increase. All other industries are cutting carbon emissions apart from transport, and at this moment society does not have a solution how to reduce this increase. One reason transport is increasingly contributing to emissions is the rapid increase in the number of cars and increasing volume of travel.
All transport modes are responsible for air pollution, but it is quite clear that the major part of air pollution is related to motor vehicles. Cars produce more air pollution than any other human activity. The emissions from road transport have been predicted to increase by around 90% from 1985 to 2030. The annual emissions from one car on average is 1.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Domestic air travel also increases the production of carbon dioxide. In 2000 it was 1.38 million tonnes and by 2030 it will increase by 31% and reach 1.881 million tonnes per year. Currently, the global population has reached 7.7 billion. Only 1 billion of the population frequently travel by air. What will the planet be like if everyone will travel by air and car? It is time to act! To reduce the carbon footprint there is a need to improve technologies, introduce new vehicles with zero emissions, improve efficiency of fuel, develop a more efficient transport system and change consumer behaviour. One solution to reduce the carbon emissions from transportation should be to shift from road and air to rail as it is a more environmentally friendly mode of transport.
There are several innovations and developments in the railway industry that will improve the efficiency and connectivity of railways. For example, China is developing a driverless train, Morocco and Turkey have built HSRs.
The conference was divided into three parts. The first part was dedicated to keynote speakers and the first speaker was Mr. Francesco Dionori, Chief of Transport Networks & Logistics Section, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Mr Dionori summarised UNECE Transport activities and highlighted the major barriers in modal shift, which are: lack of a coordinated approach in encouraging modal shift, administrative barriers at an international level, infrastructure barriers, lack of customer focus and lack of technological adoption to maximise benefits and costs. Mr Dionori presented the tools that UNECE developed to overcome these challenges to make modal shift desirable.
Mr Umberto Guide, Senior Director for Knowledge & Innovation, UITP, presented the strategy of UITP in redefining public transport in a more sustainable way. The strategy includes three major areas which are: avoid, improve and shift.
To improve the sustainability of the transport system, unnecessary trips must be avoided, technology improved and a modal shift to public transport and sustainable urban mobility modes be promoted. Mrs Judit Sandor, Programme Manager for the Cross-Cutting Activities, Shift2Rail joint undertaking drew attention to the challenges facing the transport industry move to sustainable low-carbon mobility. Travel needs must be optimised with more environmentally friendly modes and the energy efficiency of transportation improved.
The second part of the day was dedicated to two round table sessions. The topic of the first session was ‘Moving towards a low-carbon mobility: the initiatives already taken’. Railway transport is becoming an important mode of transportation, because it offers many advantages compared to other modes of transportation. The role of railway transport will increase as increasing congestion and negative environmental factors constrain the growth of road and air transport. Many countries are looking to upgrade existing railway networks or build new.
The first dedicated HSR began operation in Japan in 1964 between Tokyo and Osaka. The Deputy General Manager of Corporate Planning Headquarters of JR East Mr Omi Iryo shared the practices of the East Japan Railway Company in environmental management and presented the future development plans of the company. The achievements of JR East are very impressive. JR East has a 7400 km passenger line network and 53,200 staff. The company operates 12209 trains daily and the number of passengers has reached 17.9 million. 32% of total revenue is generated from the non-transport business. JR East own independent power generation plants and 57% of all electricity that is required for company operations is self-generated.
One reason for the success of JR East is that the company owns all stages (cont. on pg 67)...
AUTHOR
Inara was born in Latvia and graduated with a BSc in Mechanical Engineering from Riga Technical University. She has a MSc in Transport Engineering and Planning from London South Bank University and is in her last year studying at London South Bank University for a PhD.
Her research interests are focused on railway engineering and sustainability. Inara is currently involved in two international projects in Australia and Ecuador. Inara is a member of the PWI, ICE, OR and the DMDU society.
Inara Watson PhD Researcher PWI member London South Bank UniversityPWI
AREMA is the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association.
It has almost exactly the same mission as the PWI which is the development and advancement of both technical and practical knowledge and recommended practices pertaining to the design, construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure.
New Members of AREMA complete an application and may apply for Full or Associate Member status. A complete description of member qualifications is included on the online application and the membership category is subject to verification by the Director of Membership. Membership in AREMA demonstrates that you are a professional in your field, dedicated to improving your practical knowledge and interested in exchanging information with your peers in order to advance the railroad engineering industry.
AREMA provides educational offerings which includes an Annual Conference with an Expo provided in the even years, seminars/webinars and they also provide training courses and publish Manuals. AREMA provides recommended practices in all areas of rail infrastructure and has 29 Technical Committees who volunteer to oversee and update the Manuals.
As reported in the January Journal, the Annual AREMA Conference and biennial Railway Interchange trade show was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota in September 2019. Railway Interchange is the largest railway exhibition and educational conference in North America. Attended by nearly 8,000 rail industry professionals from around the globe, the event showcases the latest technology services, and research by members of the Railway Supply Institute (RSI), the Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association (REMSA), and Railway Systems Suppliers Inc. (RSSI). These three trade organisations held an excellent Exhibition. AREMA, RSI and the partner associations featured technical presentations, discussions and seminars for the attendees. It was an interesting mixture of educational opportunities, seminars, trade exhibitions and outside demonstrations, somewhat similar to Rail Live.
There were many UK relevant papers delivered by companies, universities and research establishments, a number of which will be published in this year’s PWI Journals. See https://conference.arema.org for more details.
Tech Talks is a private forum where members can discuss, debate and share views on all things related to rail technology. Members can ask questions and make comments about the technical articles that are published in the PWI Journal, as well as react to our technical seminars, Boards and relevant news.
Whenever a technical paper is published and placed in the Technical Hub on the PWI website, a post about the paper will be shared in this group, enabling members to comment or ask questions. This opens up opportunities for great conversations where additional spread of technical knowledge and exchange of ideas can occur in a professional space. We encourage healthy debates and differences of opinions, but ask that contributions remain friendly and respectful at all times.
Thank you to all who participate. Simply click the Request to join button!
...(cont. from page 66) in the life cycle of rolling stock: railcars design, manufacturing, operating and maintenance. In the past 30 years, JR East have not raised fares and charges (except the case due to an increase of consumption in the tax rate) and have not receive any subsidies from national or local governments after privatisation. JR East, to tackle global warming, have targets to reduce the energy consumption by railway operators by 25% by 2031 and to reduce CO2 emissions from the level of 2014 by 40%. It is important to improve connectivity between regions to increase access to labour market, improve business productivity and the quality of life. One way to do this is to develop new railway links. In the last few years two countries have developed HSR systems; Morocco and Turkey. The first 200 km of HSR with a maximum speed 320 km per hour went into operation in Morocco in 2018. In total it will be a 323 km long HSR which will connect two major cities Casablanca and Tangier. It is the first HSR on the African continent. Mr Said Chandid from Moroccan Railways summarised this project in his presentation. Mr Thomas
Möhrind and Mrs Eva Dijkema, Policy Advisor Environment & Sustainability, ProRail shared their experience of participating in the UN Climate Change Conference COP25 in Madrid, in December 2019. They also expressed their views on barriers that slow down the shifting of transportation to more sustainable mode of transport, to railways. Some of the barriers are the difficulties in booking an international railway ticket, lack of advertising for railway services and punctuality of trains which does not always satisfy customers. Mr Möhrind and Mrs Dijkema expressed a hope that railway operators will take part in supporting COP26 in Glasgow in 2020.
The topic of the second session was ‘How to make modal shift desirable: Rediscovering the virtue of frugality’. There were four fascinating presentations. One of the presentations was delivered by Mr Enrico Stefàno, President of the Committee for Mobility of the City Council of Rome. Mr Stefàno shared with the participants of conference the way in which the Rome Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan was developed. Emphasis was placed on
Scan below to join the group www.linkedin.com/groups/8862498/
researching the needs and desires of city residents. The top three preferences of city residents were to reduce accident rates, traffic jams and congestion and to reduce emissions. To achieve this the City Council planned a number of steps, which included improve integration of mobility resources, reduction of private car ownership and increasing the capacity of public transport.
The conference was very well received by all participants. The presentations were followed by informal discussions, questions and answers. The participants expressed thanks to organisers and speakers for the excellent organisation and extremely interesting and beneficial presentations. This event “….will help to draw a solid case for a faster decarbonisation of transport by a savvy – and frugal – use of what we have now at our disposal, or that will be to hand in a short period of time…” said Mr Davenne. It was a great opportunity to get together and exchange ideas on future railway transport on the most sustainable mode of mobility.
If you would like to become a professionally registered engineer we provide a scheme that has been developed in partnership with the rail industry including Network Rail and Transport for London, tailored to the requirements of a rail engineer.
As the rail industry’s dedicated infrastructure engineering technical institution, the PWI is committed to ensuring that its process for professional registration adds value to the applicant, their employer and ultimately the rail industry.
Every applicant is assessed against the UK Standards for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) requirements as set out by the Engineering Council, but as a PWI applicant, in addition to demonstrating your rail engineering competence, you will also need to demonstrate your commitment and contribution to proactively improving safety.
The assessment process, known as a professional review, starts with a written application, which is tailored according to the grade for which you are applying. Once this has been reviewed, IEng and CEng applicants will be invited to attend a professional review interview and providing the registration criteria are deemed to have been met, candidates will be recommended for registration.
Professional registration is open to any competent practising engineer or technician. Different levels and pathways to registration are available, depending on the individual’s experience, training and qualifications.
11 June 2020, London 16 September 2020, London 16 December 2020, London
Engineering degree accredited with the Engineering Council?
Apply immediately.
www.thepwi.org/professional_registration_ pages/how_apply
Hold qualifications that are not listed with the Engineering Council?
Apply for an assessment through our Academic Panel.
www.thepwi.org/professional_registration_pages/ academic_assessment
We are monitoring our plans to deliver our professional review interviews and are working very hard to ensure they are not interrupted.
Interviews will still take place, whether faceto-face or remotely, dependent on the latest Covid-19 government advice.
Please check the website for the most up to date information or contact us: profeng@thepwi.org 01277 230031 (option 2)
Open to any rail infrastructure engineer seeking to fill their academic gap.
No formal qualifications, but an abundance of experience?
Apply through Technical Report Option route.
www.thepwi.org/professional_registration_pages/ technical_report_option
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN (EngTech) APPLICATION FEE £60
Engineering Technicians have a practical understanding of engineering skills and techniques as well as the ability to solve engineering problems. They are the people who turn engineering ideas into reality, playing a key, hands-on role in all aspects of the industry.
Our EngTech application process is open to anyone who meets the EngTech competence and commitment criteria.
INCORPORATED ENGINEER (IEng) APPLICATION FEE £190
Incorporated Engineers maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology, and may undertake engineering design, development, manufacture, construction and operation. Incorporated Engineers are variously engaged in technical and commercial management and possess effective interpersonal skills.
CHARTERED ENGINEER (CEng) APPLICATION FEE £190
Chartered Engineers develop solutions to engineering problems, using new or existing technologies, through innovation, creativity and change. They might develop and apply new technologies, promote advanced designs and design methods, introduce new and more efficient production techniques, marketing and construction concepts, or pioneer new engineering services and management methods. Chartered Engineers are variously engaged in technical and commercial leadership and possess effective interpersonal skills.
Professional registration is open to any competent practising engineer or technician.
Different levels and pathways to registration are available, depending on the individual’s experience, training and qualifications.
Where are you on your journey?
Perhaps you’ve never heard of professional registration
Perhaps you are new to the industry and eager to develop your professional competence
Perhaps you have been in your role a long time and wonder what professional registration would do for you
Perhaps you already hold a professional title and have a plan to progress
Perhaps you are a Chartered Engineer with the PWI or elsewhere, and are interested in opportunities to uphold the Code of Professional Conduct.
The PWI is here for all of you!
All of the professional registration titles (EngTech, IEng and CEng) demonstrate to employers and wider society - in the UK and abroad - that you are competent and understand engineering principles, and that you have committed to keeping your knowledge and skills up to date. The benefits are the same for all titles: improved career prospects, greater influence within organisation and industry, recognition amongst peers, evidence of your expertise and hard work - to name a few.
If you have your sights on Chartership, don’t discount attaining the other titles first. You could find that you are eligible for EngTech or IEng several years earlier than CEng, which would get you all the benefits of professional registration, but sooner.
So why would you choose the PWI? All Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs) must uphold the standards mandated by the Engineering Council through AHEP (the academic competencies) and UK-SPEC (the professional competencies). In being granted our licence by EngC in January 2019, our policies and procedures were thoroughly scrutinised and we demonstrated that we rigorously uphold those standards. This was tested again at our licence review in December 2019, following which we received the best possible outcome. All PEIs work to uphold the professionalisation of engineering and none of us would work to see that value diminished.
But what sets us apart from other PEIs?
• Straightforward routes to registration. Our processes are not unnecessarily complicated and our Guidance and Forms are easy to follow
• Our Reviewers are rail infrastructure engineers. They speak your language and will conduct your review with knowledge and understanding of the challenges you have faced and overcome
• We support our members through workshops, presentations, 1-to-1s and administrative help
• Our fees are all-inclusive and competitive
• And we work hard to open additional routes to registration that are suited to meet our members’ needs.
And there’s all the other member benefits too. Discounted conference and seminar fees, technical publications and resources to keep you up to date with what’s happening in your role and the industry. Your personalised CPD record to generate records of your development activity. Monthly Section meetings at a place and time convenient to you, where you get excellent technical speakers and great networking opportunities too: build those relationships and tap into the support that can so freely come your way.
If you already hold the CEng title, then you likely got it with a lot of advice and guidance from people around you. It can be difficult making time to support others; but it is also incredibly rewarding, counts as great CPD, and meets the expectations of EngC’s CPD Code for Registrants: “Support the learning and development of others through activities such as mentoring, and sharing professional expertise and knowledge”.
Whilst candidates at all levels require both a Supporter and a Sponsor, you could offer informal support through mentoring or buddying a colleague. Support could also come to the Institution: being able to offer our members professional registration requires a small army of volunteers – and you could be one of them! Join our Membership Committee, Academic Panel or Professional Development Committee, or become a Reviewer for us.
Please do get in touch if you’d like to express an interest in any of these roles. We’d be delighted to keep your details on record.
Why don’t you take a step closer to where you want to be on your journey today? Perhaps Covid-19 has given you time to focus on you...
Liz Turner
Professional Registration Manager
profeng@thepwi.org
I have been doing research and consultancy in railway engineering for more than 14 years. After doing an MSc and a PhD to broaden and deepen my knowledge, I felt I needed something more. Joining the PWI allowed me to access a vast amount of knowledge through the excellent PWI Technical Hub, and to meet with many like-minded railway engineers at seminars and Section meetings.
Becoming a Chartered Engineer was an invaluable experience that allowed me to demonstrate evidence of my expertise, and commitment to rail engineering and safety. It was an excellent opportunity to plan the professional development needed to succeed in my current job and future career. Professional registration demonstrates that I have gained the recognition of my peers as meeting the UK standards for knowledge and experience, which are internationally recognised. I believe registration is essential for professionals from both industry and academia.
The registration process was straightforward. The PWI registration team was incredibly supportive and helpful, and the guidelines provided were excellent. I am also grateful for the support I got from my Sponsor and Supporter, and I also intend to assist others in achieving professional registration.
DR SERGIO NEVES - CENG
If you are interested in finding out more about professional registration, take a look on our website where you’ll find a wealth of information.
Alternatively, give Liz a call or drop her an email. She would be delighted to help.
Would you like your team to learn more? Don’t let Covid-19 stop you! Our Professional Development Officers can deliver a presentation to them via remote means, and can offer 1-to-1 conversations too.
I was really pleased when the PWI gained recognition with the Engineering Council and started to offer professional registration at all levels. With the magnitude and complexity of some of our projects it deserves to stand alongside other Engineering Institutions. Having spent 25 years working in the rail industry, predominantly in track renewals and PWay engineering, the PWI finally offered an extremely relevant route to gaining Chartership.
Once over the initial, slightly daunting prospect of sitting myself down and compiling a report that satisfied UK Spec, I actually found the process both interesting and therapeutic; reflecting on what has been an interesting, varied, challenging, rewarding and at times emotional career. The memories came flooding back, and the support from my peers and the PWI throughout the journey was first class and very much appreciated. Liz, Kate and the PWI team in particular helped to make the process as straight forward as possible.
Having been fortunate to hold many senior positions within the track renewals community, it was essential for me to finally gain recognition as a professional engineer, and I am pleased that Network Rail are also now encouraging and supporting their staff to follow this path. I felt I had the experience, knowledge, competence and capability; but I can now hold my head high amongst my peers, with a formal qualification befitting to my role.
The industry has been kind to me over the years and I feel that I owed it to myself and the industry to support the PWI and I would encourage anyone within the industry to join the PWI and seek advice on how they can gain the relevant accreditation. I have already started mentoring other engineers on their routes to professional registration and I look forward to supporting the PWI in the future. I am proud to call myself a Chartered PWay Engineer.
DAVID UNDERWOOD - CENG
Brian Parkinson 07876 578905
(Covers all areas north of Birmingham) developmentofficernorth@thepwi.org
Paul Ebbutt 07887 628298
(Covers all areas south of Birmingham) developmentofficersouth@thepwi.org
Philip Homfray EngTech
Benjamin Brooks CEng
David Froggatt CEng
David Underwood CEng
Sergio Neves CEng
Liam Allen IEng
Anthony (Lin) Deuchar EngTech
Ryan Walker EngTech
Samuel Mitha EngTech
Gilles Moullec CEng Dual
Peter Dearman CEng
Timothy Dixon CEng
Maria Gallou CEng
Arun Nittur Shivakumaraswamy CEng
Mark Jackson IEng
Following our Membership Committee meeting in March, we now have over 170 registered PWI engineers, with another c.340 who have been in touch expressing an interest in registration.
I am delighted to confirm our first Chartered Engineer to progress through the pilot experiential learning route to professional review. This is the route for Bachelor degree holders with rail experience to progress using their experience, instead of having to do a Master’s degree. We are working on a similar route to Engineer registration and I will update you later in the year.
Paul Ebbutt and Brian Parkinson, our Professional Registration Development Officers, have held workshops to help people prepare and we will do more. Would your team be interested in this? Let us know!
Many engineers are very busy and struggle to find time balancing work, home, hobbies and chilling. My message is that if you get registered early on, you can make career choices later which allow you to do what you want and like doing. During these turbulent times, we all need to concentrate on the future and spend time preparing our personal plan to get further qualifications. We can provide online support – watch out for the emails!
Brian Counter Technical Director Permanent Way Institution technicaldirector@thepwi.org
What’s
The PWI is here for your jouney and would love to support you in your career aspirations.
www.thepwi.org profeng@thepwi.org
Professional registration is open to any competent practising engineer or technician.
Different levels and pathways to registration are available, depending on your experience, training and qualifications.
40 Couper Street, Glasgow, G4 0DL
A huge well done to the members who have become Professionally Registered since the last Journal. This is an amazing achievement.
PWI training started over 100 years ago and more recently has been providing high level technical training for engineers and professionals operating at all levels. The courses are designed to develop skills and knowledge in all aspects of track repairs, renewals and projects and can help you on your journey to professional registration.
The courses are delivered by industry experts and use the most up to date standards and materials. Awards are made by the PWI upon successful completion of written assessments. These comprise Certificates and a Diploma, which has been professionally validated at university level.
We are monitoring our plans to deliver our training courses and are working very hard to ensure learning with us is not interrupted.
We are committed to delivering first class technical training, developed and delivered by experienced rail infrastructure engineers.
Please check the website for the most up to date information or contact us: secretary@thepwi.org 01277 230031 (option 1)
PWI Training is going well with over 140 delegates participating in the last 12 months. Apprentice training has also taken a leap with the launch of Rail specific highlevel apprenticeships with Amey at Sheffield Hallam, and Network Rail at London South Bank University.
Following our formal membership of the JBM (Joint Board of Moderators) who jointly accredit degrees in civil, structural and highway engineering, Stephen Barber introduced the PWI at the annual JBM briefing. We are planning to host a University visit this year.
When I was at the University of Warwick at the end of January, the JBM visit Chair not only announced the PWI as the fifth Professional Engineering Institution of the JBM, but gave Warwick a formal recommendation to include rail on their transport module. This will enhance our standing in UK Universities and raise our profile significantly, especially to encourage more colleges and universities to do rail modules.
We have just awarded 30 Track Engineering Diplomas following the latest course in January. There are many distinctions and it proves to me that those attending have worked hard. Watch out for the smiling faces at our next big events! Of particular pride to me are the Irish and Saudi Arabian award holders, who travelled all the way to be with us.
We have a full programme of courses planned, with the latest ones now being carried out in our Virtual Training Classroom, and an enhanced programme from September 2020, including more S&C Refurbishment courses planned for this year. With Covid-19 worries and extra tasks this is a great time to plan for the future, so get your bookings in and join the exclusive band of awardees; remember places are limited.
Brian Counter Technical Director Permanent Way Institution
technicaldirector@thepwi.org
The Derby Conference Centre is where we hold the faceto-face PWI Courses.. It has a great railway heritage and was built in 1937 as the LMS School of Transport.
PWI Training involves a visit to Derby Station. This is the south end following remodelling in 2018. Note the clever design which separates the Midland Main Line and Cross Country services. What a difference the 40 mph speed makes from a blanket 15mph over a mile long!
Our courses have moved online!
Join us in our Virtual Classroom Training from your home or office in April, May and June as we deliver the Track Engineering Diploma courses directly to you.
You will benefit from:
• A four-day course with breaks – just like the classroom, but no travel or hotels
• First class technical training, developed and delivered by experienced rail infrastructure engineers
• Online work materials, tutorials, group discussions, interactive worked examples
• Access to tutors in a 1-to-1 environment to answer any queries or recap any areas of uncertainty
• Small class sizes
• Printed course book and personal work book posted to your home address
• PWI S&C Design textbook delivered to you
• On-line assessment
• Easy connection from home or work.
Courses held in Derby include all training materials and lunch.
Accommodation at the venue includes evening meal, single room and breakfast.
All prices are exclusive of VAT.
Further information and booking www.thepwi.org secretary@thepwi.org 01277 230031 option 1 technicaldirector@thepwi.org
Part A 6 - 8 October 2020
Part B 20 - 22 October 2020
Delegates on this two-part course will gain comprehensive detailed knowledge of S&C and how to undertake refurbishment safely, efficiently and to the required engineering quality. The course will cover both the track assemblies and the trackbed under S&C.
Participants will undertake detailed analysis and inspection of layouts so that they can scope and specify work correctly to provide the necessary life extension of the layout. The course will then ensure that delegates understand the various maintenance interventions suitable for S&C and its components and can plan those required in the correct sequence. Modules include: S&C Components Design and Analysis / Site Survey and Measurement / Scoping and Planning.
Delegates will have to pass a formal assessment at the end of the course and will be awarded a PWI Certificate in S&C Refurbishment on successful completion.
Course cost: £845 Accommodation cost: £300 www.thepwi.org/pwi_training/pages/pwi_s_c_refurbishment_course
The aim of the programme is to give delegates an understanding of the principles, theory and practice of track engineering in the UK. It is comprised of three modules and involves 100 hours of taught study all mapped to HE Level 6. Upon successful completion of all three modular assessments, candidates will be awarded the PWI Diploma in Track Engineering.
This course is aimed both at newly qualified and experienced engineers, and will give delegates the knowledge and skills needed for professionals in track engineering.
MODULE 1: TRACK MAINTENANCE
8 - 11 June 2020 - Virtual Training Classroom 7 - 10 December 2020* - Derby
Gives a basic understanding of track engineering and its theory and context. Develops a knowledge of track types and features, its interfaces with other rail infrastructure including earthworks, structures and clearances, and track maintenance including ballast, drainage, stressing, grinding and welding.
MODULE 2: TRACK DESIGN
20 - 23 April 2020 - Virtual Training Classroom 21 - 24 September 2020 - Derby 7 - 10 December 2020* - Derby
Focuses upon track design for projects and enhancements. Through design case studies and exercises, develop skills in track design of plain line and switches and crossings, component knowledge and configurations, layouts, innovations and life extension, route evaluation and trackbed design.
MODULE 3: ADVANCED TRACK ASSET ENGINEERING AND RENEWALS
11 - 14 May 2020 - Virtual Training Classroom 9 - 12 November 2020 - Derby 7 - 10 December 2020* - Derby
The study becomes more strategic and delivery oriented with advanced asset management techniques and applications. Gain a deep understanding of UK track renewal planning, plain line, S&C, existing and future methods, rail renewal scenarios and optioneering, and learning from accidents. Understand advanced technical rail management issues, rail sustainability and strategic track asset management.
Module cost: £595 (Virtual or Derby) Accommodation cost: £225 www.thepwi.org/pwi_training/pages/pwi_track_engineering_diploma
* subject to demand
I have been working on the permanent way for some 56 years now. Starting with BR in 1964 I progressed through the technical grades and several management positions. I was a PWME at Derby at the time of privatisation and then joined Balfour Beatty in their strategic development group.
My career has been full of interesting experiences including three years working in Malawi and two years in New Zealand; I was in a Network Rail team who developed the CP5 track asset policy; and I did my best to destroy a nuclear flask by train at Old Dalby.
During my career I have been lucky to work with several fine engineers who took me under their wing and imparted much knowledge and experience into my brain. I have never forgotten this support and I have always tried to encourage and motivate young engineers. Hence my latter role in training, which I have undertaken for several companies including two universities, the PWI and Neway. This has taken me to some exotic parts like Australasia, Europe, USA, Ireland, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I really enjoy supporting the PWI and aspiring engineers on the path to becoming Professional Permanent Way Engineers. My life lesson for all: keep learning, stay positive and have a laugh.
Dave Ratledge teaching track forces and loading at the Derby Conference Centre on Module 1 of the PWI Track Engineering Diploma.
My life lesson for all: keep learning, stay positive and have a laugh.
www.thepwi.org/shop/
The grade of Fellow is the highest grade of membership that the PWI can confer upon a member. PWI Fellowship will raise your professional standing within the industry, increase recognition of your expertise and enhance your professional networks. The PWI Board must by majority approve all transfers to Fellowship.
An applicant for Fellowship must hold or have held a senior or influential position in the railway industry and made a significant contribution to the industry or PWI
Complete the application form with personal and work details, and describe in 200-300 words how you demonstrate a personal commitment to the PWI Code of Professional Conduct and your future commitment to the PWI. You’ll also need to get two sponsoring Fellows, at least one of which must be a PWI Fellow. Remember to enclose your CV and CPD records for the past 12 months.
www.thepwi.org/membership/fellow
The PWI has really reinvented itself over the past few years and now feels like an exciting Institution to be part of.
Over the last few years I’ve finally got my act together, realising the importance of looking back at my experience. Professional registration was all about me taking stock of what I’d done at the mid-point of my career, thinking about my development and readying myself for the future.
Fellowship, the next logical step, is recognition of my broader experiences and contributions to both the industry and Institution. Sharing my knowledge and experience by supporting others on their journey to become professionally registered engineers is one of the things we can all easily do. As a Fellow of the PWI, I enjoy contributing both at local Section committee level and nationally as part of the Membership Committee and I’d definitely encourage all experienced, enthusiastic engineers, passionate about contributing to the growth of our Institution to get involved.
Being a Fellow of the PWI is the ultimate recognition of what you’ve done but also what you can offer, demonstrating commitment to the Institution and the rail industry as a whole.
Nick Lake BSc IEng FPWI from Network Rail was appointed a PWI Fellow in 2019.
You may have already heard the PWI talk about plans for better engaging with our younger community. It is essential for the future of our Institution and indeed the industry, that we share our vast pool of knowledge and experience with the young individuals who are new to their roles and to work culture. Some of these individuals, after all, will go on to become tomorrow’s leaders.
It is equally essential to breathe fresh ideas and innovation into the industry by encouraging young members to have the confidence to propose change. Sometimes opportunity for change is difficult to spot from an experienced standpoint, but new minds who are approaching old problems for the first time may see differently, and they need the guidance from more mature hands who understand the barriers to change only too well. Creativity, innovation and safety must remain at the heart of our engineering community.
The gap between the way different generations think, behave, communicate and respond can feel so massive, it’s a wonder how an Institution like the PWI - with individuals at polar opposite ends of their professional and personal journeys - can bridge that gap. The PWI is far from alone here. It’s a challenge faced by many organisations and communities today, so thankfully there are many great opportunities for collaborative learning.
One such opportunity was presented by Southbank University in February. Their Careers & Employability department hosted a seminar called “Attracting, Engaging and Recruiting Generation Z,” where experts spoke about the psychology of today’s youngest adults, exploring their attributes and the challenges they face. The PWI attended and met with faculty and other organisations.
A key take-home from the seminar was that while youth culture has always been questioned and in some cases misunderstood, the communication-technology boom of the last few decades has certainly magnified the current feeling of a “generational disconnect”. The major shift started with Millennials - those born in the early early 80s to mid 90s who reached early adulthood at the turn of the millennium during the big social media boom, and furthermore with Generation Z, those born in the mid 90s and 00s who are currently today’s youngest adults.
Both of these generations have been stigmatised for their use of communication technology. But actually, as experts at Southbank pointed out, the way that today’s
youngest adults operate is astonishingly efficient and beneficial. In the most general sense, Generation Z are known to be natural technologists who trust in new technology, fast communicators, extreme multi-taskers, globally minded and more diverse than any generation before them.
Clearly, all generations have something unique to bring to the table, so we must work to close the generation gap and lever the different attributes between us. At the PWI, we are working to introduce many ways to achieve this and have already started to implement some exciting steps led by our President Joan Heery, who sees this as a key priority of our institution’s trajectory.
February also saw the release of the PWI Social Media workshop; an opportunity for all members of our community to gain confidence in social networking. We are currently working on similar workshops, such as a Rail Career Pathways workshop, designed to showcase all the different paths individuals can consider within the rail industry.
In March, we launched the new Young Engineers Section, the PWI’s first virtual Section, encouraging members under the age of 30 to form a sub community with any members who wish to engage with them. We launched this during the PWI Young Engineers community campaign, where we celebrated young members of our community and their early achievements.
We are in the process of strengthening our alliances with several key universities and colleges that offer rail engineering courses, including becoming a Gold Partner of London Southbank, which means the PWI will have presence at many university events and fairs throughout the year. Similarly, we have established key contacts within our corporate community so that we can better engage with their younger workforce and offer more support and learning opportunities where possible, including getting more companies involved with the annual PWI Practical Trackwork Challenge.
We are also in the process of establishing a “Transitions” scheme that aims to better support individuals who are transitioning out of education and into industry for the first time. This scheme will be applicable to members of all ages, equally recognising the many individuals who have decided to enter the industry later on in their lives.
Other events and activities have been factored into this objective too, such as PWI Careers Week in September, and the many Young Achievers Awards held by colleges and organisations that we aim to endorse.
So far, the response to these changes from our community has been brilliant. We have seen a major surge in engagement. Our Section Secretaries and Committees have been hugely supportive and more young individuals are stepping forward to get involved. We were delighted to hear PhD student Muhammad A B Fayyaz present at the North West Technical Seminar in March on “object detection at level crossings and deep learning,” and we eagerly encourage more young members of our community to volunteer as speakers.
The Young Engineers campaign gained us several new volunteer Ambassadors, our youngest Ambassadors to date; Ryan Lord, Samuel Allwood, Tim Atkinson and Muhammad A B Fayyaz who have been significantly contributing to our community; and we also welcomed James Richards, CEng FIMechE, a key figure behind the multi award winning Fast Trackers Programme for 16-19 year olds, and an expert in rail career pathways.
It certainly feels like the PWI is making strides at achieving our strategic goals of modernising and rejuvenating as an Institution, and this has been further demonstrated by how quickly we adapted to the Covid-19 outbreak - embracing modern forms of online meetings and events to stay connected. We are immensely grateful for the energy and enthusiasm our community is responding with because, as always, we couldn’t do it without you. Thank you to everyone who has been involved.
If you have any ideas on how we can engage with our younger community, or if you’d like to get involved in any of the activities mentioned in this article, please contact me.
Michelle Mabbett Marketing Consultant michelle.mabbett@thepwi.org
Welcome to our new Section which has been formed on LinkedIn to provide a central location for all the younger members of the rail community to engage. This is a virtual Section, meaning you can opt to join while remaining a member of your regional home Section too.
The Young Engineers Section is a place to exchange thoughts, ideas, views and challenges you may be experiencing in your role as a young person working in the rail industry. It’s a place to gain and offer support, to meet likeminded individuals, and to participate in social activities as the group becomes more defined.
Simply click the Request to join button!
Later in the process, we will be seeking a Section Chair and Secretary, as well as committee members, who will be able to facilitate further structure to this Section. To express an interest in any of these roles, please contact michelle.mabbett@thepwi.org
Scan below to join the group www.linkedin.com/ groups/8865220/
Hello, I’m Ryan, an Engineering Apprentice working in Manchester on the Transpennine Route Upgrade Rail Project. I am 19 and working towards my Civil Engineering degree part time at Liverpool John Moores University. I have been working on the railway since I was 16 and I’ve been learning ever since.
I got into engineering because it’s a great industry where you truly can learn something new everyday. The idea of being challenged and being able to start planning and carrying out my own piece of work really appealed.
It was fortunate that my Dad had worked on the railway since before I was born, so I had an insight to the railway world from him telling me about it. One day he asked if it would be something I’d be interested in doing and the next thing I knew I was getting up at 5am and being driven into Manchester. I was able to work with the track delivery team throughout the summer - when I was meant to be on holiday after just finishing high school; but I think in the end it was the best decision I could have made. During the summer I was learning the basic details of railway engineering on a work experience basis, developing my knowledge of different terms and pieces of equipment, and helping with paperwork and the fun task of folding drawings!
After working that summer and starting college in September, I was still keen to learn more about the railway. I was told I could work on-site with the engineers I had been helping, as there was a Christmas blockade where renewals were taking place in Salford as part of the Northern Hub WPA stage A4 (Ordsall Lane Junction Re-Modelling). This meant I would have to go and do my PTS and the only place I could get it done in time was Scotland.
I achieved my PTS and was then able to gain on-site renewals experience whilst still 16; a great start to my career. While on-site I was using the total station to help lower track panels into place with a Kirow Crane, as well as shadowing the senior engineers with different tasks. After the main bulk of works I was also going through site carrying out As-Built surveys and installing datum plates.
The next opportunity to work on-site came in Easter 2017 in the next stage of blockade works: Northern Hub WPA stage A6 (Salford Central Re-Modelling). This time I was able to see a new method of installation –using Pem/Lems – as well as learn how to carry out new tasks and gain more experience. I was again helping the track team, working with the dozers carrying out the dig by using laser levels to ensure it was a level surface.
I was also able to work with the tampers by following a safe distance behind, measuring and recording the cant readings using a crosslevel. It was
interesting to see how the tamper worked and the different equipment it has which enables it to move the track. I even briefly featured on a Network Rail video on YouTube (even though it was for all of 3 seconds!).
As well as the on-site work, in the lead up to the works being carried out I was able to get involved in the preparation of site documentation, compiling tech-packs for use by the engineers and supervisors on-site. This allowed me to have a go at writing Task Briefing documents and in doing so, learn about what sort of information is required and where to find it.
In the summer holidays of 2017 I was there again, but this time there was no track installation work underway; instead they had just finished installing the new Ordsall Chord bridge and I was going up to site every day carrying out surveys using the total station, shooting into spigots and retros for marking out ballast heights along the walls and gathering general information. It was very interesting to be in a civils environment seeing the different things that went into the bridge construction, such as the concrete works and waterproofing.
After two years of part-time experience I was keen to get into the industry properly and start my career. After continuing to work the odd weekend shift helping with surveys, in September 2019 I was successful in applying for a position as a degree apprentice on TRU West of Leeds (aka “Transpire”) and since then I have been learning more and more about the railway - I believe it is one of the few jobs where you really can learn something new every day.
Since starting full time, I have been attending University and progressing with my career. I have been challenged with learning more and more to help the team out. For example, I have been very involved in compiling permit to dig forms for work on-site. This involves looking for an in-date buried services document, and taking out all the relevant pages that show information for the area being worked in. Then once all the pages have been gathered, I create a permit to dig form which includes method of excavation, proposed dig depth and emergency phone numbers for the different services. The buried service drawings are then attached, and it is then ready for site use.
I have also been involved with on-site work such as track asset surveys, amber trolley runs, and drainage surveys using a dumpy level. I have completed several courses including my SMSTS which I found especially interesting as it helped me understand the importance of CDM and how I can help make the working environment safer for all. I have also had the opportunity to begin planning and carrying out my own work on-site. Although only the basic job of putting CRT monitoring devices out on track, it has been very useful going through the whole process behind planning work and creating all the necessary documents for carrying out the task, as well as gaining more on-site experience. It was good to have responsibility over the task, ensuring everything was in accordance with the rules and regulations, and a great learning opportunity.
Introducing Ryan Lord, PWI Ambassador and Amey Apprentice Engineer. Ryan will be featuring his apprenticeship diaries in each issue as a way of sharing the life and journey of a young rail apprentice with our community.
3 November 193925 November 2019 (aged 80)
Alex was born 1939 and brought up in Inverness at Dixie Villa, immediately adjacent to the Ness railway viaduct (which partly collapsed in 1989).
Alex commenced his engineering career by joining Sir Murdoch Macdonald’s office in the late 1950s. However, it was not long before he followed in the footsteps of his father and eldest brother by joining British Railways (BR) and took up a post in the Chief Civil Engineer’s office at St Enoch’s in Glasgow. With the setting up of the Highland Lines Organisation in Inverness, an opportunity arose to return north and Alex moved back to Inverness in the early 1960s. The Engineering re-organisation at the end of 1967 which set up Divisions, meant a move to Perth where Alex travelled south every Monday and home each Friday evening. This change of base allowed Alex to join the PWI and he became a core member of the Perth Section, as well as being so well known and respected by many members of the Institution. Although Alex travelled to and from Perth in the first few months of 1968, he finally moved to Perth later that year, where he and his wife Annette would stay for over 50 years, raising three sons.
In 1970 Alex took on the role of Permanent Way Renewals Assistant from Jimmy Paterson. As memories fade, so do dates but after some debate it was agreed Alex worked for
CW Burnett then John Pitts (Divisional Civil Engineer) in addition to Ian Hodgson, Jim Cornell, Mike Chorley, Murray Farmer and Bob Collinson. Hugh McKenna covered the assistant post around 1970 then with Sandy Ross, Peter Everett, Tony Smith, and David Hill Smith all playing an important part in Alex’s day to day work serving as PWRA. During his time in Perth, Alex and his experienced relaying gangs successfully trialled a number of early P-Way concepts, including the long switch concrete bearer layout (on the curve) immediately south of Blair Atholl station.
Alex used his strong social (and persuasive) skills to help run local meetings in Perth and Inverness, including assisting the earlier quizmaster Jim Donald then Kenny Weir, with the famous annual Perth quiz. He even presented papers to Sections, including to his good friends in the Irish Section. Alex played a vital part in several successful national PWI events in Perth and Inverness; of which a few may recall 1996 Winter Technical meeting in the Station Hotel, Perth (led by the then secretary Kenny Weir) with the Burns supper, or even the 1985 Perth “summer“ convention (led by the then secretary Hugh Campbell), where it snowed in June. Alex and Annette were also regular attendees at many national PWI events over the years where they built up a huge network of friends.
At privatisation, Alex completed his employment with BR around 1994 and not long after he was deservedly awarded PWI honorary life membership, acknowledging his service to the Institution. In 1995 he commenced a period of consultancy, initially with Bob Collinson at Halcrow and then around 1997 with Alison UK. During these latter consultancy years, Alex utilised his vast experience carrying out track renewal validations on behalf of Railtrack Scotland.
Other duties included walking many of the routes throughout Scotland, carrying out the then named “rolling contact fatigue” inspections. In the early days of high-output, he was even appointed to take care of the visiting engineers who were observing the new plant in operation.
During his working life Alex’s infectious personality meant he made a huge network of friends within the railway, but in 2001 Alex eventually hung up his well-worn boots, dedicating his life to his family and friends. In 2003 Alex’s health began to deteriorate with a number of long term issues making his day to day life very challenging. Although Alex’s football days had passed and golf was getting more limited, he was as determined as ever not to let that get in the way of life. He continued to be a regular swimmer at Perth swimming pool and continued to attend local PWI Section meetings until more recently. Even facing a number of serious issues, including losing his vision, with the support of Annette, Alex was still able to enjoy life and always greeted you with a smile and a story.
During Alex’s PWI membership of over 50 years, he held several posts including: Section Secretary, Section Chair, Council Member, Council of Management representative and even PWI Vice President for his beloved home country of Scotland around 1987/88. Alex’s character made him very popular with so many people, whilst his hospitality and kindness was second to none. Everyone that knew Alex will remember a time when he would ask you to join him for a wee whisky, or as Alex would call it at his local Cherrybank Inn, a “snekie”.
Friends and family all agreed, if they were all to share just one story about their time with Alex, it would fill the entire Journal.
Experience - 20 years
Qualifications – Incorporated Engineer, Chartered Building Engineer, Chartered Manager, Studying Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering & Construction Management.
I have always been interested in the railway from a young age and my father was key to my interest with his many stories of working on the Dawlish sea wall. I joined the railways in 2000 working as a subcontractor under Railtrack. Working alongside my father, we spent 3 years installing the train protection warning systems (TPWS) throughout the Western Route. At the same time I was also studying for my Bachelor’s degree. After graduating in 2005, I was very fortunate to start as Technical Officer in the Exeter TME team. It is here that my railway career really started, through understanding all the engineering disciplines in a challenging geographical area.
The railway offers many great opportunities and I feel privileged to be part of an industry that truly cares about you, your family and your development.
My Project Engineer role is to ensure that the Works Delivery (Track) workbank under CP6 is delivered, working alongside the project management and construction teams. I currently have nine technical staff that survey, design and install all specifications to Network Rail’s track construction standards. My role is to manage the team, the engineering deliverables, and manage all interfaces for Safety by Design. Many specifications are hard to deliver due to the multiple non-compliant interfaces discovered from our surveys. This requires working collaboratively with the other disciplines to address the affected assets and to make sure the railway system is compliant or working towards compliance as far as is reasonably practicable. It’s all about understanding the risks, what we can achieve and how we will safely construct the track with no risk upon track handback with zero delays.
The objectives for the engineering and construction disciplines are to ensure that we deliver the planned renewals in order for the maintenance teams to manage less daily risk and that the safety of the line is maintained whist being efficient for the client. This is the work ethic which is the core of Works Delivery.
Prior to starting my Project Engineer role, there was no technical team in place. When I was offered the role, I relished the opportunity to build a technical team and to further build the engineering department. It was hard graft to start with. However, five years later, I can proudly say that every single one of my technical engineers are key to making Western track renewals successful.
Like most areas within the railway we are fortunate to be able to say, “no day is the same”. This couldn’t be more evident in track renewals, where the plan changes from weekend to weekend due to the natural possession and site issues we encounter during our works. The key ingredient to making our works a success is the sharp planning, stealth decisions on site, and the trust and camaraderie we all share for each other as a team.
The ultimate reason and reward for a life in track renewals is looking back over a track renewal upon hand back and feeling euphoric knowing the hard work that went into the works when everything was against you. From the planning to the first train, renewals is an emotional journey yet our renewal teams and I thrive off delivering work with the challenges presented.
Achieving the status of Incorporated Engineer, and Chartered Building Engineer in late 2019 was a great achievement for me and I’ve just been accepted for Chartered interview in 2020. I was very lucky to have the support of my line management to pursue professional registration, whilst being supported through my Master’s degree that I am now studying for alongside work. Fitting this all in with family life has been hard but I’ve got a plan and I’m
sticking to it. My advice for anyone starting the professional registration journey is that there is never going to be enough time. It’s just about making time and setting deadlines with the right support.
I am also very proud of all my technical engineers, as well as the wider Works Delivery teams. Sometimes we forget the commitment that staff make in lodging away, working nights and the changes in shift patterns, all whilst being away from their families. Renewals simply wouldn’t function without the hard work of my technical team, or the understanding of their families who cope without them at home. I started this role with two technical engineers and this has now grown into a larger, very competent and resilient team. There aren’t many technical teams that are responsible for the geographical area we manage, along with the workforce we support and the amount of designs we survey, design and deliver.
I’m also very proud of some of the people I’ve mentored and managed through the newly established PWI Exeter Section. When I started my professional development, the nearest PWI Section to me was Swindon which is a five hour round trip. So, knowing this and how my engineers and local teams were missing out, I knew I had to act to ensure they received CPD and to bring the PWI back home to Exeter. This year has seen many engaging talks and the first professional development workshop day, that was a great success.
Prior to Works Delivery going to a routebased function, we evolved from Plymouth IMDM. It was Plymouth’s outstanding maintenance delivered renewals that gave me the confidence we could expand. However, this came with the difficulty of aligning maintenance and track construction standards. Ultimately, safety was always the focus. As the organisational template wasn’t correct for what a renewals function should look like, this proved difficult in the reporting lines, day to day running and understanding of how renewals work on a larger scale, especially with respect to the renewal processes. Since going to route in 2018 and with a well templated, strong management / leadership team, we operate to a high standard and our senior leaders and client understand and support us wholeheartedly with future growth still yet to come.
Firstly, start the professional development process and always push your line managers for development to demonstrate your interest to improve. Whilst understanding that courses teach you the railway basics, being out in the field ‘sponging off’ everyone is where you really learn the core railway principles and get a feel for how the railway operates when things go wrong.
Always listening to the front-line teams is very important in management, as they always have a valid input into the way sites operate and without engaging them in planning the job, you could fail. If the railway was a car, the front-line teams are the engine. A car doesn’t go very far without its engine, so focus on your employee engagement plan.
Finally, make sure you put safety at the forefront of everything you do, and know that your gut will always tell you when something doesn’t feel right, so listen to it regardless if you are under pressure!
My next aspiration is to become Chartered (CEng), and to finish my Master’s degree. Long term, I would like to play a leading role in the competency and development for
Network Rail and the PWI by bridging these together. Ensuring our engineers are working towards professional registration gives us further assurance that we are a highly skilled workforce endorsed by a professional body.
I am very passionate about all engineers achieving it and they should have it at the core of their development plan.
FINALLY, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT SOME OF YOUR INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE WORKPLACE?
I’m very passionate about hiking. Living in Devon I am always hiking the Jurassic coast and on an average weekend I walk 25 miles. This year I have hiked in Snowdonia and climbed Ben Nevis and I plan to complete the Sierra Nevada (three peaks in Spain) and hike Kilimanjaro for 10 days in September (Covid-19 allowing). Ultimately, I want to complete the seven summits.
Here’s a few of Mark’s action shots from Camborne Up renewal.
WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO THOSE WHO ARE NEW, OR ARE CONSIDERING JOINING, THE RAILWAY INDUSTRY?
ATTENDEES - Gren Edwards (Chair), Stephen Barber, Andy Cooper, Kate Hatwell, Brian Counter, Liz Turner, Roy Hickman, Michelle Mabbett (dial in)
APOLOGIES - Joan Heery, Andy Tappern, Nick Millington, John Edgley, John Dutton, Colin Wheeler, Steve Whitmore
MINUTES - The meeting opened at 1115 with thanks to Phil Ransom at Jacobs for providing the meeting space, a welcome to all present and apologies noted from those absent. A safety briefing was given.
NON-EXECUTIVE REPORT FOR APRIL JOURNAL - AC agreed to write the NonExecutive Summary for the April Journal.
12 NOVEMBER 2019 BOARD MINUTES & ACTIONS - The Board were happy that the minutes were a proper reflection of the meeting and were agreed and approved.
CEO REPORT - SB spoke to the following:
• Individual membership grew, but it is a real focus for 2020 with a target for significant growth. We have been hugely successful with corporate membership, and now have 50, which represents a high degree of market penetration. The challenge now is retaining them through the value they get for their subscription. JH’s exercise of meeting with them has been valuable and we will need to act on the recommendations in her report. Indications are that the big issues are already within our strategic plan. We need to recognise that with a portfolio of 50, there will be different needs to serve. Board members noted that this is where we should be on the maturity curve, and that we should be cognisant of the changing shape of the railway – including new alliances / mergers and on the global scene - to ensure we remain a step ahead.
• A highlight of Section development is West Yorkshire, as they have recently formed strong working relationships with Leeds University; with thanks owed to Sergio Neves and Phil Kirkland. The University may offer an ideal meeting space for the Section too. The Edinburgh Section is also building links with Napier University; and Manchester and Liverpool Section’s positive move to MMU was also noted. Exeter Section has set the standard for new Sections. Ashford is in development and there is increasing demand for meetings to be held at Three Bridges. We are keen for Sections to develop from the ground up, offering support as required.
• In discussion with Vice Presidents, some are very heavily committed and we would like to introduce at least one more VP role, potentially to be deployed in the South, especially if new Sections establish there. Propose a change to the Articles so that Board is empowered to appoint VPs as is required to achieve the aims of the PWI.
• RH noted that 9 or 10 of our corporate members are heritage railways. Agreed that
over the next five years our strategic plan is to create a better offering for them. JH is to meet with them and agreed it would be beneficial for RH to attend and support. Suggest a PWI presence at future Heritage Railways Association seminar.
JD in correspondence noted that it was very good to see our proposed representation at educational career fairs.
FINANCIAL REPORT - KH presented the 2019 draft accounts (to be updated with bank interest once known, and circulated by correspondence) and 2020 budget.
AT in correspondence: I have reviewed the year-end accounts with Kate over the past few weeks and recommend they are approved by the Board. I commend Kate for the high quality of the results and the significant amount of work preparing them. Also, Brian should be commended on his hard work continuing to grow the training programme which is now a significant contribution to the PWI’s financial results.
JD in correspondence: 2019 draft accountsgood graphical representation of turnover and operating margin, a great year end position and everyone has to be thanked for “making this happen”. It is very good to see another year of progression, in particular through a period of transition and handover – a point worth drawing out at the AGM. I am supportive of the endorsement of these accounts.
Board members agreed that the accounts were comprehensive and clear, and uplifting to read. Noted pressure on costs and changes which could impact our acceptable but thin margin.
Post meeting note – The final statutory accounts for the year ending 31 December 2019 were reviewed and formally approved by the Board.
TECHNICAL REPORT - BC presented his report:
• Main highlight is a very good session for volunteer Reviewers, which represents a milestone for us as we delivered our own training to new Reviewers and brought existing Reviewers back for a meeting. They are crucial to the future of the organisation and it was a big strategic move for us. We need to support them and be desirable to them volunteering with us. Going forward we will need to do more training, especially if we are to be a player with apprenticeships.
• We give free membership to apprentices, but they could become EngTech competent during the apprenticeship. Keen to promote EngTech and working with Sheffield Hallam and London South Bank to promote registration as an incremental process, with CPD benefits.
• Looking at an experiential learning route for IEng for those holding HNCs, which would be a big strategic move for us.
13 February 2020
Jacobs, Birmingham, B4 6BN
JD in correspondence: good to see the growth in the registered engineers with over 200 in the wings. This is great to see, whilst being mindful of expanding our resources to meet demand.
• Light rail is another area for growth. LRSSB gave a presentation to the Technical Board recently. JD in correspondence: pleased the Technical Board went well with Peter Cushing with a significant number in attendance.
JD in correspondence: excellent news on JBM – well done Brian for progressing this, it does hold us in high regard as we progress further in our journey.
MARKETING REPORT - MM spoke to her report, particularly noting the new strands to the strategy:
• Uplifted brand identity – this can be seen in the January Journal, which visually looks very different to previous copies; enhancing the brand aesthetics which go around the marketing and communication assets we produce.
• New community campaigns and toolkit –delivered at Section Secretaries’ meeting. Some campaigns are PWI led and others external but relevant. The tool kit sets out ways to support the campaigns eg physical support, social media, forums. The first campaign is professional registration week, running this week with a lot of noise and activity on social media platforms.
JD in correspondence: good to see the list of major social media campaigns, and that they are well spread throughout the year; very supportive of this piece. We should look to feed in STEM Ambassadors. A credible action for the PWI would be to align ourselves more closely with STEM Learning to raise our members’ awareness of the programme and give them clearer opportunities to share their enthusiasm for engineering with young people.
• Social media workshop. Intend to trial with Board and then take to Sections. Likely that it will be pre-recorded, to be watched at a time convenient to the individual (rather than one workshop at a specific time), followed by timed slots to engage and ask questions afterwards. A virtual asset, but with scheduled Q&A.
In addition:
• eBlasts are a new communication tool, designed to be short and punchy with reminders of events in the short term. The reach rate has been very positive. AC said he was impressed by the eBlasts he had seen. Newsletters will retain a fuller news purpose. Membership of Tech Talk on LinkedIn grows daily.
• Intention to establish a Young Engineers Section, which has the support of JH. It will be rolled out as a virtual Section in the next few weeks.
GE commented that the subject matter ties in with our membership drive, and there are inextricable links to the changes within the education sector. Executive team need to think more about the linkages between the themes which overlap, to optimise use of our limited resource.
JD in correspondence: Very pleased to hear about the growth in the Tech Talk Membership – a great means of accessing the skills base.
REGISTRATION REPORT - LT noted the following salient points from the report:
• The number of registrations now stand at 166, with good levels expressing an interest too (306). We posted a 7.7% year on year growth.
• We were awarded a four-year licence by EngC in January 2020, which was the best possible outcome of our licence review, which took place in December 2019.
• We intend to increase our CPD Audit sample size in 2020 to 5% from 2.5%.
• BC noted that we are conducting the first professional reviews for OLE engineers in March 2020.
JD in correspondence: great summary of where we are and what the key areas of progression have been.
GE noted that 10.4% of registrants across all PEIs are female and asked how we fared. Keen to ensure that we do not put up any barriers to registration. Post meeting note: 10.17% of our total registrations are female.
Your Board met in Birmingham on 13 February 2020 and reflected on the continuing success of the Institution thanks to the hard work of the Executive team and Section leadership. The implications of the IR35 anti-tax avoidance legislation were considered and actions agreed to ensure compliance.
The continuing focus on growing membership led to discussions highlighting some important initiatives by Sections, initiatives to add value and the importance of the new communications
MEMBERSHIP REPORT - JD in correspondence highlighted the potential step change in the membership profile, which will create different dynamics and potentially change us in terms of our focus. This should feed into our strategic thinking in due course.
GE noted that changes in the education sector are fundamental and will have an impact and we need to ensure that we are fit to grow. We need to provide sufficient support and resource for the management changes, and work hard to maintain the good reputation we have.
KH noted that there had been no negative feedback on the new-look January Journal and the work on social media is fantastic. RH commented that the member return rate is fantastic. The CRM in development will provide enhanced communications to better engage with them, and we are enabling subscription payment in monthly instalments – hopefully these measures will slow down attrition rates.
RISK & OPPORTUNITIES REGISTERSB spoke to the changes to the registers, as highlighted in the paper.
The Opportunities Register increases the priority of heritage railways to reflect their contribution. AT in correspondence noted that, following the Prime Minister’s positive go-ahead for HS2 yesterday, the PWI should review the opportunity for further membership in this area.
The nominations for 2020 were discussed and agreed. Board members were asked to keep this at the top of their agenda, especially now it is only a one-year term. It will become a
standing agenda item, so that this can feed into our strategy.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARTICLES / AGM AGENDA - Board approved the spirit of intent in changing the wording in relation to Vice Presidents; the reason for it reflects our success. SB will draft the appropriate wording. KH will speak with the VPs who are due for re-election and SB the NEDs, following which it will be sent to Board by correspondence.
REGISTERED OFFICE - Board approved the proposal to move the registered office to our accountants’ address, and to obtain a PO Box for correspondence.
HONORARY LIFE MEMBERSHIP NOMINATIONS - Board approved the nominations received for Phil Kirkland and Russell Kimber.
Board approved applications from the following for Fellowship:
Goran Begonja, WSP (Sponsor – Les Fox)
Sana Wajid, NR (Sponsor – Gareth Evans)
Alistair Kennedy, RSSA (Sponsor – Liam Purcell)
Matthew Brett, Colas (Sponsor – Stuart Murphy)
Dr Amer Ali, LSBU (Sponsor – Mike Forde)
David Connolly, Leeds Uni (Sponsor – Peter Woodward)
James Cronje, Alstom (Sponsor – Tom Mann).
NEXT BOARD MEETING
Thursday 19 May 2020 (11:00 – 15:00), venue London (TBC).
activity which was setting new standards for the PWI. The financial results for 2019 were reviewed and endorsed for presentation at the AGM, reflecting another satisfactory year. The importance of the technical training activity to this outcome is evident and the need to adequately resource it to keep the growth and quality at the present high standards, for which the Technical Director was warmly congratulated.
The continuing success of Professional Registration was noted and thanks expressed to the team of Reviewers and for the professional administration. It was agreed that the award of a four-year licence by Engineering Council was the best possible outcome of our December licence review.
The importance of a focus on female registrants was stressed. The increasingly sophisticated approach to marketing the Institution was noted and the impact which this was having on its reputation and presentation, with thanks due to the team.
Finally, the Board considered arrangements and the agenda for the 2020 AGM.
2019 has been a year of change from which the Institution has emerged in good order. Our operations team led by director, Kate Hatwell has supported the delivery of ambitious growth targets and significant investment in team expansion to deliver both immediate improvements to member services and the Institution’s long-term strategy. In addition to my appointment as CEO, the year has seen the Institution welcome Liz Turner, Michelle Mabbett, Andy Packham and Andy Steele to the executive team, and the expansion of Kerrie Illsley’s role to include Journal production.
Our 2019 Journals and events, including Section meetings and seminars, provided unparalleled opportunities for members to continue their professional development, growing their knowledge and understanding of railway infrastructure engineering: one of the Institution’s fundamental objectives. 2019 saw the Institution consolidate its relationship with overhead contact systems engineering, organising a well-attended seminar in Derby. These events were augmented by our programme of high-end technical training, expanded in 2019 to include new courses covering track renewal and refurbishment, developed under the guiding hand of technical director, Brian Counter.
Autumn saw the Institution deliver its third annual Practical Trackwork Challenge at the Churnet Valley Railway in Staffordshire. The event gave a record number of delegates from our corporate members the opportunity for ‘hands-on’ experience of serious trackwork, and once again the feedback from delegates left no doubt as to the high
value placed on such a learning opportunity. Invaluable support from generous corporate member organisations and Institution volunteers was vital to the challenge’s success.
The year saw a small increase in individual membership, with notable growth in the younger age ranges. Corporate membership has grown to 50, with good representation from small, medium, and large organisations operating in the field of railway infrastructure engineering. 2019 saw the start of the President’s consultation and fact-finding initiative with corporate members, and close engagement with Sections. Joan Heery’s work will provide a detailed framework for the further development of member services in 2020 and beyond: early feedback underlines the critical importance to members (both corporate and individual) of regular, proactive, multilateral communication. The Institution’s social media presence, expanded in 2019, will play an increasingly important role in this.
The Institution ended 2019 with 161 professionally registered engineers and, with >200 expressions of interest in registration, indications of continued growth in this important area are encouraging. The fall-out from the Grenfell Fire tragedy has created an impetus for professionalisation of the wider engineering community and the PWI is very well-placed to facilitate this within the railway infrastructure sector.
Following a review by the Engineering Council in December 2019 the Institution gained a four-year extension of its Professional Engineering Institution licence, the best possible outcome and a reflection of the excellent work of the volunteer and
executive members of our review and registration team. In 2019 the Institution also commenced the process of joining the Joint Board of Moderators where, together with the Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Structural Engineers, Institute of Highways Engineers, and Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation it will carry out accreditation of educational programmes within the built environment sector.
Turnover grew to £681,716, up by 14% compared to 2018 and exceeding budget by 6.9%. With the cost of sales applied, gross profit of £363,365 was up 2% on budget at 53.3% of turnover. This is a slight fall compared to 2018’s 55.8% and reflects planned investment in expanding our services to members and industry.
Overhead costs have been well managed but reflect the effort required to achieve a seamless handover of work from old to new executive team members. The combination of service expansion and transition costs means that net operating profit stands at £6,174 (0.9% of turnover); slightly lower than in 2018 but remaining commensurate with the Institution’s core objectives and values.
The PWI’s financial reserves have grown and remain at a healthy level, permitting continued controlled investment in member services through 2020. The PWI’s one historic investment rose in value, reversing the loss suffered in 2018 and resuming the pattern of steady growth seen over recent years. Current assets and cash at bank both grew from 2018 figures.
1. To receive apologies for absence
2. To celebrate the lives of members who passed away during 2019
3. To receive the roll call of the Sections
4. To receive and, if thought fit, agree the minutes of the 2019 Annual General Meeting, held on Friday 12 July at 16.00hrs at the Macdonald Burlington Hotel, Burlington Arcade, 126 New Street, Birmingham, B2 4JQ
5. To receive a report from the President
6. To receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer
7. To vote on proposals from the Board to amend clause 4(1)(b) within the Articles of Association to be able to determine the number of Vice President roles as deemed suitable from time to time to support the Institution’s activities
8. To receive and, if thought fit, adopt the Directors’ Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 December 2019
9. To confirm John Edgley as President
10. To elect officers of the Institution.
Any member wishing to propose a candidate for any of the above posts must advise the Secretary in writing not less than 28 clear days in advance of the Annual General Meeting. Any candidate must meet the requirements of Clause 4(1) of the Articles of Association. Details of the person specification for each role are available from the Secretary. A member entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, but who is not able to attend, is entitled to appoint a proxy to vote in his/her place. Proxy forms are available from the Secretary and must be returned not less than 7 clear days in advance of the Annual General Meeting.
Please visit the PWI website, or contact the Membership Team: secretary@thepwi.org
Company Limited by Guarantee
Directors' Report Year ended 31 December 2019
The directors present their report and the financial statements of the company for the year ended 31 December 2019 Directors The directors who served the company during the year were as follows:
Mr A J Cooper Mr C J Wheeler Mr S B Whitmore Mr J C Dutton Dr B J Counter Mr S J Barber Mrs K J Hatwell Miss J Heery Mr J G Edwards Mr A Tappen
(Appointed 5 February 2019) Mr N J Millington
(Appointed 12 July 2019) Mr J R Edgley
(Appointed 12 July 2019) Mr D A Packer
(Resigned 22 March 2019) Ms A B Stansfield
(Resigned 12 July 2019)
(Resigned 31 May 2019) Mr S. Featherstone
The directors are responsible for preparing the directors' report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulations. Company law requires the directors to prepare financial statements for e ach financial year Under that law the directors have elected to prepare the financial statements in accordance with United Kingdom
Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (United Kingdom Accounting Standards and applicable law).
Under company law the directors must not approve the financial statements unles s they are satisfied that they give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company and the profit or loss of the company for that period.
In preparing these financial statements , the directors are required to:
select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently;
make judgments and accounting estimates that are reasonable and prudent ;
•
prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the company will continue in business.
•
The directors are responsible for keeping adequat e accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions and disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the comp any and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006 They are also responsible for safeguardi ng the assets of the company and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.
•
Company Limited by Guarantee Independent Auditor's Report to the Members of Permanent Way Institution (Incorporated) (continued) Year ended 31 December 2019
Other information
The other information comprises the information included in the annual report, other than the financial statements and our auditor ’ s report thereon. The directors are responsible for the other information. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the ot her information and , except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon. In connection with our audit of the financial statements , our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is mate rially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we iden tify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to determine whether there is a material misstatement in the financial statements or a material misstatement of the other information. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other infor mation, we are required to report that fact.
We have nothing to report in this regard.
Opinions on other matters prescribed by the Companies Act 2006
In our opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit:
the information given in the directors' report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements ; and
•
the directors' report has been prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements. Matters on which we are required to report by exception In the light of the kno wledge and understanding of the company and its environment obtained in the course of the audit, we have not identified material misstatements in the directors' report
•
We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the Companies Act 2006 requires us to report to you if, in our opin ion:
adequate accounting records have not been kept, or returns adequate for our audit have not been received from branches not visited by us ; or
•
the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or
certain disclosures of directors' remun eration specified by law are not made; or
•
we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit ; or
•
the directors were not entitled to prepare the financial statements in accordance with the small companies regime and take ad vantage of the small companies' exemptions in preparing the directors' report and from the requirement to prepare a strategic report.
•
Company Limited by Guarantee
Independent Auditor's Report to the Members of Permanent Way Institution (Incorporated)
Year ended 31 December 2019
Opinion We have audited the financial statements of Permanent Way Institution (Incorporated) (the company ') for the year ended 31 December 2019 which c omprise the statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial position, statement of changes in equity and the related notes , including a summary of significant accounting policies . The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including FRS 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in t he UK and Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) In our opinion the financial statements :
give a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs as at 31 December 2019 and of its profit for the year then ended;
•
have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice ;
•
have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of t he Companies Act 2006 Basis for opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK) ) and applicable law. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the auditor's responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section o f our report. We are independent of the company in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit o the financial statements in the UK, including the FRC s Ethical Standard, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance w ith these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
•
Conclusions relating to going concern
We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the ISAs (UK) require us to report to you w here:
the directors' use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is not appropriate; or
•
• 86
5 -
4 -
Year ended 31 December 2019
Responsibilities of directors
As explained more fully in the directors' responsibilities statement, the directors are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a t rue and fair view, and for such internal control as the directors determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements , the directors are responsible for assessing the company's ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the directors either intend to liquidate the company or to cease operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so.
Au ditor's responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from ma terial misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor ’ s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements
As part of an audit in accordance with ISAs (UK), we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional scepticism throughout the audit. We also:
Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements , whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, in tentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.
•
Please visit the PWI website, or contact the Membership Team: secretary@thepwi.org
Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effecti veness of the internal control.
•
Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by the directors
•
Conclude on the appropriateness of the directors' use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a materia l uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditor s report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditor ’ s report. However, future events or conditions may cause the company to cease to continue as a going concern.
•
Evaluate the overall presentation, structure an d content of the financial statements , including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a man ner that achieves fair presentation.
•
Profit and loss account
Company Limited by Guarantee Statement of Changes in Equity Year ended 31 December 2019 Fair value reserve
£
189,608
£
Total £
144,222
45,386
At 1 January 2018
11,914
Profit for the year
11,914 Other comprehensive income for the year: Fair value adjustment
1,878
(6,763)
7,029
11,914
196,637
1,878
(6,763) Tax relating to components of other comprehensiv e income
(4,885)
156,136
40,501
Total comprehensive income for the year
At 31 December 2018
8,117
Profit for the year
8,117 Other comprehensive income for the year: Fair value adjustment
(1,972)
10,380
(1,972)
10,380 Tax relating to components of other comprehensive income
8,117
213,162
8,408
16,525 At 31 December 2019
48,909
The notes on pages 12 to 18 form part of these financial statements .11 -
164,253 89
SECTION MEETING - WEST OF ENGLAND. 11 September 2019. Western Rail Link to Heathrow - Oi Ki, Designated Project Engineer and Aleks Sienkiewicz, Senior Track Project Engineer.
Oi Ki started the presentation by discussing the background of the Western Rail Link to Heathrow project. Heathrow airport does not have a direct rail connection to outside London which would compensate for the very congested road traffic. All the passengers and workers add a lot of traffic on the roads and on the London rail connections. The project is planned for four trains per hour, calling at Reading and Slough - with significant journey time savings compared with car travel on the same route. The rail link to Heathrow will improve connectivity, reduce congestion and will boost the economy of the region. Reading station was rebuilt to handle more train services, including this new connection, that allows greater choice for passengers and airport employees. Oi Ki presented the complex interaction with the project stakeholders, including local councils, Crossrail, HS2, Highway England, Heathrow Airport and Department of Transport.
The second part of the presentation was given by Aleks Sienkiewicz, who focused on the track related works of the project. He described the high-level design constraints, the route between Langley and Heathrow T5, the Relief line service and the grade separation required by the project. Aleks described the issues of the initial design of the tunnel alignment and how these were solved by design developments and optimisation. One of the aims of the project was to keep as much as possible of the existing Langley alignment, but also to use a 100-mpg turnout to get into the new alignment. The design optimisations ensured that the intersection bridge and the tunnel portal were kept - resulting in a steeper gradient of 1:65 and reduced the headroom under the intersection bridge. The estimated savings of this optimisation are £40 million. Aleks also described other design challenges related to the interface with Crossrail, with the aim of reducing maintenance and to use a slab track system. Aleks closed his speech by presenting the main stages of the project and the staging strategy. A vote of thanks for both presenters was given by Gilles Moullec.
SECTION MEETING - WEST OF ENGLAND. 9 October 2019. High Output Track Renewals: Ready for CP6 - Doug Swinney, Network Rail High Output Team Senior Programme Manager, Western, Wales and Wessex.
The presentation started with the history of High Output that started in 2003 as a contractor’s joint venture - delivering high output track renewals on the Western Route. High Output works with NR Routes to identify strategic campaigns of work that meet customer needs and deliver industry efficiency by maximising resource utilisation, effectively packaging work and optimising access windows. High Output is organised in five regionally aligned Programme Management teams - Principal Designers under CDM –having 10 senior Campaign Managers and following Grip4Track project management methodology.
Doug described the entire process of planning the high output renewals - the interface with various parties involved or interacting with the delivery process, the operational railway interface and in defining the engineering train path; considering that the trains are W6a gauge, it is sometimes challenging to reach
the site of work. Sometimes this requires temporary copping stones adjustment at platforms and other temporary work to facilitate access.
Now the High Output teams are distributed in four Delivery Teams - Doncaster, Crewe, Bletchley and Swindon. The programme has a dedicated track design team in York. The supply chain organisation has 7 HOOBs (High Output Operating Bases) and the national control centre is based in Milton Keynes. The organisation also has a fleet of engineers and maintainers with two national fleet overhaul facilities in York and Reading.
High Output has a strong supply chain network - keeping close relationships with Plant OEMs, innovative national labour, and welfare planning /supply contracts, established network of on track and small plant, signalling, E&P, welding, safety systems, survey and design part and specialist plant suppliers.
The system is formed of a Track Relaying System (TRS) - replacing the old rail with new rails, new sleepers, a Ballast Cleaning System (BCS) to remove the spoil, ballast screening, ballast cutting, good ballast is returned, and new ballast is added. The new system has a self-contained tamper - one pass of it will allow the opening at 50mph. Doug finished his presentation by presenting how High Output evolved from 2004 -2009 when it delivered 85km TRS and 140km BCS on two routes. This was followed by a double quantity in 20092014 (CP4). In CP5 90km BCS and 30km TRS was delivered. The aim for CP6 is 120km BCS and 80km TRS - on all eight routes. At the end of the presentation, Doug answered questions raised by the audience. A vote of thanks was given by Constantin Ciobanu.
Oi Ki, Heathrow Aleks Sienkiewicz, Heathrow Doug Swinney, Network RailSECTION MEETING – LONDON.
2 October 2019. HS2 Earthworks - Sarah Trinder, HS2 Ltd.
Sarah started us off with the vision for HS2 which is to be a catalyst for growth across Britain and went through the objectives for the scheme in its various stages and proceeded to focus on the objective to run 18 HS2 trains per hour and be affordable.
Sarah gave us a brief history of HS2 and its current status awaiting “Notice to Proceed” which is expected this year. Once this is received it would allow HS2 Ltd to sign the major contracts for the construction of phase one.
Within the functional statement Sarah highlighted HS2’s “Safe at Heart” policy: the carrying out of all routine, planned trackside maintenance will be made possible outside of operational hours.
Sarah set the scene for the creation of geotechnical design standards by explaining the three drivers: Tolerances, Reliability and Environment. The design approach was adopted from long standing industry experience with Highways England’s “CD 622” (formally “HD22/08”).
The huge data collection carried out for the Ground Investigation (GI), the largest ever conducted in the UK, demonstrated the project’s scale which fed into its challenge.
Sarah then mentioned the key involvement from International Technical standards which: allow interoperability (TSIs), ensure access to international supply base making procurement fairer, assure safety and reliability in operation, and all contribute to the continual innovation and development of HSR.
Sarah proceeded to talk through their approaches to the challenges presented by the varying ground plasticity in data collection results. Firstly, importance was placed upon correctly assessing peak strength vs residual strength and secondly, research into ground movements within earthworks, such as comparative settlement of slab vs ballast, the stiffness across transitions, and seasonal effects. Sarah presented the outcomes of these works: the standard for earthworks including Raleigh Wave velocity requirements and a graph of plasticity index vs liquid limit upon which a region was defined to set material requirements. Sarah then discussed the challenge of earthwork performance, including an interesting comparison on the stage of LU assets with HS2 assets on the graph of “Asset Age vs Performance” and talking through failure modes and climate change impacts. The site trials carried out by HS2 were then presented including shear wave testing and a heave trial to assess the performance of built ground which gave impressive results to back up their assessments and modelling. Questions were answered at the end by Sarah before a vote of thanks by Fiona Thomson.
SECTION MEETING - WEST OF ENGLAND. 6 November 2019. Delivering Digital Engineering & BIM for Network Rail Infrastructure Projects - John Nolan, Programme Manager BIM for the Capital Delivery Wales and Western region, Network Rail.
At our usual venue in the Atkins office in Swindon, John Nolan gave an excellent presentation on Building Information Modelling (BIM). John set out to demystify what BIM is and what it means for infrastructure projects.
His presentation started by explaining how BIM has been used since 2012 in the Great Western Electrification programme to identify conflicts between assets during design and how it has now been adopted by the numerous companies working in the railway industry in the Wales and Western region.
John then described how BIM is structured and what the regional strategy is for its implementation in the Wales and Western routes. He explained Common Data Environment, and the requirements for the Employer Information Requirements document and Network Rail and Suppliers’ BIM Project Execution Plans (PEP and BEP). He continued by explaining why information is important during the lifecycle of a project, and the criticality of good surveys to provide robust base data. He then provided examples of the newest technology used in the region to capture topographical data.
John talked about the benefits of BIM for projects, not least reducing the need for ‘boots on ballast’ thus decreasing the risks of accidents, but also cost and time savings. John continued with examples of BIM application in the Region, such as signal sighting, construction planning and driver training, before ending the presentation with a glimpse of oncoming improvement and innovation such as Virtual walkthrough and Digital Twin.
At the end of his presentation John answered a wide range of questions, demonstrating the interest for the subject he passionately talked about. Following a vote of thanks, and announcements regarding on-coming PWI events, Gilles Moullec closed the meeting.
SECTION MEETING - SOUTH & WEST WALES. 11 November 2019. Bullhead Bad, Cant Deficiency Good: Managing the WheelRail interface on London Underground - Andy Vickerstaff, Transport for London.
As Senior Wheel-Rail Interface Engineer, Andy recounted seven years’ experience down the tube to a meeting attended by 18 members of the Section or neighbouring Sections.
Outlining the varied LU system with overground, subsurface and deep tube locations with a variety of track forms and rail types on sometimes very tight running line curves, Andy gave members a comprehensive introduction to the effects of the wheel and rail interaction on this predominantly wear dominated railway. Andy discussed the effect of wear on the control of minute cracks in the rail head which is the precursor of RCF and the implications of modern rolling stock and driving technique on localising rail wear under ATO. Predicting rail life and developing a whole life rail model is one of constant refinement. The challenges of inspection and maintenance and the pressure to reduce engineering hours for the introduction of night tube services, initially at weekends, meant ever present trade-off between long life continuously welded rail (and difficult renewal), and the relative ease of replacement of BH fishplate jointed track, but with vigilant
Using My CPD will assist you in your career planning and will enable you to demonstrate your professional competency.
My CPD is available to all PWI members www.thepwi.org
CPD (Continuing Professional Development) refers to the learning you do to develop or maintain the knowledge and skills you need to succeed in your career and maintain your professional competency. The most important thing is to focus on its relevance to your current role and your future career ambitions.
CPD demonstrates your competence as you keep yourself up to date. It instills self-confidence, and inspires confidence in those who work with you. And by demonstrating your commitment to learning, you are more likely to be given opportunities to progress in your career.
Don’t leave it until the last minute! You should plan your CPD activity at the start of the year to ensure it is relevant to your development needs.
inspection and constant maintenance. Lost customer hours by line closure quickly brings London to a stop. Having a vertically integrated organisation on LU allows the whole system to be managed with long term planning for line blocks after discussion between infrastructure, rolling stock and operations departments. This allowed coordinated heavy maintenance or renewal and trade-offs between rail and flange profile to give optimum rail grinding and tyre turning strategies. The speaker was able to describe the investigations into flange lubrication and its efficiency on various types of rolling stock with differing bogie designs. This occurred just prior to the stock being replaced by a uniform design! At the end of the presentation Section Chair Andy Franklin asked James Hepburn to give a vote of thanks which was proposed and carried unanimously.
SECTION MEETING - LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE. 12 November 2019. High Output Track Renewals: Ready for CP6Neil Sunner, Network Rail.
Neil Sunner is the Senior Programme Manager for High Output (HO) renewals in the North West & Central Region. He began by explaining that HO operations nationally consist of four ballast cleaning (BCS) and two track relaying (TRS) ‘systems’, or trains, which deliver annual campaigns aligned with Network Rail’s eight routes. This is achieved by means of short midweek working periods (of 5-6 and 7-8 hours on the WCML) and longer weekend blocks. These feature adjacent lines open (ALO) working and high ‘hand back’ speeds of 100mph and above.
HO is a track principal contractor with four delivery teams nationally (based in Newcastle, Doncaster, Bletchley and Swindon) comprising an eight-man design team, 45 track engineers, 40 expert works managers and 60 permanent way and signalling staff. The BCS and TRS
trains, which are hauled exclusively by Freightliner locomotives, operate from seven HO operating bases with an operations headquarters in Milton Keynes, and the fleet is maintained at York and Reading.
The client for the renewals is the route asset manager, and the development time for a project from start to implementation is two years, using five regionally aligned project management teams. At GRIP 1 stage of the design process, access planning and integration is considered, while at GRIP 2 and 3 ballast return forecasting, trial hole boring and reviews of structure clearance and condition take place. Finally, at GRIP 4 survey and design work for the project are undertaken, together with an ALO feasibility study. Implementation takes place over GRIP 5 to 8.
The rate of HO renewals nationally has evolved from an initial 87 miles of BCS and 53 miles of TRS in Control Period 3 (2004-9) to respective figures of 149 and 93 miles in CP4 and 56 and 19 miles in CP5. In CP6 it is projected that 74 miles of BCS and 50 miles of TRS will be achieved (2019-2024), adopting a year of 52 working weeks rather than the 44 of previous control periods. Specific goals for CP6 include a policy of no overruns and safety excellence, as part of which wet ballast will be used to minimise dust risk and ‘Prep4Safety’ will minimise the risk to operational railway safety; ballast will also be re-used sustainably at source. Workforce engagement is to be achieved through the exclusive use of directly employed contract labour and increased welfare provision. In the North West & Central region 23.9 miles of BCS work is scheduled for completion in 2019-20, and the total forecast for BCS for the CP6 period is 97.8 miles.
At the end of the presentation there was a period of questions and discussion of the material, and John Parker gave the vote of thanks.
SECTION MEETING - WEST YORKSHIRE. 19 November 2019. Construction of Selby Diversion - Hugh Fenwick, Fellow PWI.
Hugh told the story of the origins of the diversion and the various alternatives considered, after the once National Coal Board announced its intention to open a new coal mine. Post presentation discussion compared the project to modern ones and many compliments were paid as to the manner and speed with which the Selby Diversion project produced the result, still in use today.
A major problem encountered by those constructing the diversion was the poor ground conditions and Hugh described the methods with which these were overcome. Another noticeable feature was the way in which landowners on either side of the new line were encouraged to ‘swap’ parcels of land to mutual benefit. The number of bridges required by the new route prompted the design of a ‘standard bridge’ with various forms of the basic design being used at different locations. All the different aspects of the project were carried out ‘in house’ by British Rail civil engineering departments, and care was taken to create a line which would be easy to maintain. Morris Smith stated that this had made his job as Area Civil Engineer, responsible for the subsequent maintenance of the line, a lot easier. Hugh showed how the project made use of a railhead from the original lines, in addition to creating a Haul Road. On my way home I wished I had asked Hugh why the project and subsequent ones made use of a Haul Road, rather than bringing ALL items to site by rail. It is my understanding that railways were built to aid the construction of several large reservoirs in North Yorkshire, so why have we changed to roads, given the increased environmental damage caused by road traffic?
20 November 2019. A Strategic View of Scotland’s Railway: CP6 - Bill Reeve, Director of Rail, Transport Scotland.
Bill introduced his presentation by explaining Transport Scotland’s wide-ranging responsibilities. Transport Scotland’s budget in 2018-19 was £2.4bn of which £808.8m was spent on Rail while £831.5m was spent on Motorways and Trunk Roads. The Scottish Government meets around 60% of the costs of running the railway in Scotland (£5 billion over 5 years); an interesting comparison with the 20% contribution from UK Government for running the railway in England & Wales.
to be tackled or developed in CP6 including Edinburgh Waverley Western Approaches, Levenmouth, West Fife Enhancements, Growing Lothian and Borders and Aberdeen to the Central Belt. Realising the potential of existing assets is seen as important.
A comprehensive discussion session followed including Bill challenging the extent of the planned disruption to deliver S&C renewals at Haymarket East. A vote of thanks was given by Tom Wilson.
are required. Reference Profiles are not permitted to be used however progress has been made generating a Lower Section Infrastructure Gauge which caters for structures up to 1100mm (waist level). To demonstrate compliance three techniques are permissible: comparative, absolute or a hybrid to enable an assessment of safe passage of rolling stock from a clearance gauging perspective.
Recent developments include review of why some routes are protecting clearances for Stocks that will no longer run on them, researching and trialing different solutions to enable fixity tolerances to be squeezed and development of “go almost anywhere” gauges with a listing of exception structures which limit route availability, and working on a campaign basis to rebuild these exception structures, increasing their structure gauge to facilitate scope for larger rolling stock.
In CP6 the Scottish Government wants significant rail investment funds deployed by Network Rail in support of sustainable economic growth, including secure rail industry employment within Scotland. The Scottish Government require efficient delivery, optimised by steady work-banks thus avoiding activity peaks and troughs. However, Bill expressed his personal disappointment that, despite funding being made available, Network Rail were unable to provide work bank continuity in early CP6.
A key aim of the Scottish Government is to reduce emissions from Scotland’s railways to zero by 2035 through the continued electrification of the network, the procurement of battery-powered trains and exploration of the potential of hydrogen-powered trains. To do this, unit costs must be reduced and this will embrace the development of an efficient electrification technical specification optimised for Scotland that can deliver an affordable rolling programme of electrification with appropriate plant, staff and resources based in Scotland to maximise the benefits to Scotland, including the supply chain.
Gauging was an issue in CP5. Bill said that the approach to the gauging processes had been unsatisfactory in system terms, adding significant risk, delay and cost to the introduction of new rolling stock, the reallocation of existing rolling stock, the development of rail freight business, and the efficient operation of tourist trains. Train operators must be able to plan the movement of vehicles without the need for expensive and time-consuming bespoke gauging exercises.
The Scottish Ministers require that, by the end of CP6, all Scottish routes are maintained to be capable of accommodating all locomotives and rolling stock, including cross border services and charter operators vehicles, which have run in Scotland in CP4 and CP5 or are known to be planned to run in Scotland in CP6.
Bill highlighted that an integrated approach (Project Definition: Timetable, Rolling Stock and Infrastructure) together with affordable pricing was essential for delivery of projects in CP6. He mentioned several key projects
SECTION MEETING - LONDON. 4 December 2019. Gauging historic infrastructure for the 21st century - Dr. Bridget Eickhoff, RSSB.
Wednesday 4 December was a historic one for the London Section, as it was the last Section meeting at 55 Broadway. This venerable building was designed by Charles Holden and built between 1927 and 1929 as the new headquarters for the Underground Electric Railways Company of London. Upon completion, it was the tallest steel-framed office block in London. The building, first listed as Grade II in 1970, was upgraded to Grade I in 2011.
The meeting was marked by an excellent talk by Dr. Bridget Eickhoff of the RSSB on the topic of ‘Gauging historic infrastructure for the 21st century’, and since it was our Christmas meeting, mince pies were also provided. The photograph shows some of the London Section Committee with Bridget next to a model of 55 Broadway.
Bridget’s presentation focused on a number of key topics: gauging - what is its purpose and objective; the history of how gauging has evolved as a consequence of how UK railways were funded, designed and constructed; where we are at currently with Standards; the journey we have been on to get to this point and in conclusion where do we see gauging developing in the context of future developments on the railway.
The core objectives are to ensure there are no collisions between trains and structures or trains on adjacent lines, coupled with delivery of the biggest trains to get through the space protected for use above the guideway.
Credit is due to our predecessors who created railways that are robust and capable of delivering increased speeds and tonnage. Thankfully they agreed on a uniform track gauge of 4ft 81/2” however a Standard Structure Gauge was not agreed. This has generated many challenges as freight container heights have increased, as well as managing conflicts between clearances (a requirement) and stepping distances (a nice to have, but gaining significance as we seek to deliver increased accessibility).
The Euronorms are based on a premise that larger clearances permit simple processes, however within the UK more precise methods
Future developments maximise capacity of routes, increase use of standard infrastructure and standard rolling stock helps to reduce costs of assessment, inspection and maintenance. To enable improved customer experience the progressive approach will be to lower floors within trains and a requirement for new rolling stock rather than raising heights of platforms (which results in a larger offset). Increasingly stepping plates are being deployed to assist with managing safety concerns where large gaps are present in platforms. Bridget closed her presentation with a reminder that positive clearance is a requirement and normal clearances are not. Andrew Brice gave the vote of thanks on behalf of the Committee.
SECTION MEETING – THAMES VALLEY. 4 December 2019. Annual Social Event & Christmas Railway Quiz - Colin Brading & David Brace.
In anticipation of knowledge, experience and ingenuity in the railway industry being tested once again, our Chair introduced our ‘presenters’ for the evening - Colin Brading and David Brace - inviting them to challenge
Bill Reeve, Director of Rail, Transport Scotland addresses the Glasgow Section (photo: Jim Watson).
Transport Scotland budget 2018-2019
55 Broadway (photo: Mike Barlow)
Members of the London Section Committee with Dr. Bridget Eickhoff.
Section members and friends to the 2019 Technical and Historical Railway Quiz. The Gateway Inn in Greyfriars Road, Reading proved a convivial venue for a diverse range of questions: five teams of closer colleagues and ad hoc partnerships, facing five rounds, exploring the railway world.
Round 1 ‘High Speeds and Speed Records’ opened with the well-known feats of the GWR and the LNER in the early 20th century. The LMS got a look in too but sadly not the Southern before we were whisked to HST, APT, European and other exotic trains and speeds across the world. Were we considering mph or the more superficially astonishing km/h capabilities? ‘The Complete Works’ toured the UK’s railway workshops, but naming required imagination and lateral thinking – how would you have illustrated Ashford or Litchurch Lane? Lots of time spent reading Modern Railways and the PWI Journal was needed to score well in Round 3 - ‘Reopenings/ Enhancements/ New Line/ New Stations/ New Trains’. Most of us knew about the reopening of the third tunnel bore at Kings Cross but the aerial view of Worcester Parkway was a source of some dispute; quenched in Round 4 by dealing with ‘Rail and Ale’, an absorbing look at Brains, Burton and the ample capacity of St. Pancras, before the continent had got a grip, followed by a break for our own refills and a good buffet spread.
The final treat was 20 minutes in Round 5 of John Schlesinger’s 1961 film Terminus – yes back to the Southern for a test of observation of all walks of life at Waterloo. Was it the stock market listings that the city gent turned to on arrival, or the crossword? Who was leaving sponsored by the Home Office? And we had to work out that there were 15 trains an hour to Clapham Junction.
As to the scores, a wide range this year with the Baulk Roaders at 83 sitting back in awe at the capacity of the Fantastic Four with 92, their rivals the Baulk Riders catching 103, The Usual Suspects nailing 115 and the Swindon team, above all competition of course, at 117. Prizes were distributed and appetites whetted for another contest in 2020.
SECTION MEETING - WEST OF ENGLAND. 4 December 2019. Presidential Address - Joan Heery, President of the Permanent Way Institution, and Plain Line Pattern Recognition (PLPR) experience on Western Route - Anthony Harmes, Programme Manager, Western Route Infrastructure Maintenance and Steve Pearson, Route Asset Manager, Track, Network Rail.
The meeting was opened by our President, Joan Heery, who presented to the Western Section the five-year strategic plan for the Institution. This plan is focused on the re-formation of the Executive Team, on the development of a next generation website of the Institution and enhanced virtual presence. Another objective of the President is the development of the PWI brand of technical excellence, competence and continuous improvement demonstrated through all the PWI activities. Joan described the plan for the strategic partnership with the PWI Corporate Members, designed to benefit the rail infrastructure industry. The key to all these objectives and the heart of the organisation are the Sections of the PWI, delivering value and being the key link between the organisation and the individual members. Joan ended by presenting the last objective of the strategic plan - Training and Development delivered by the PWI – a significant area of business success as the Institution offers multiple courses which are well attended; recognition
that the Institution is a technical knowledge custodian. At the end of the address, a vote of thanks was given by Gilles Moullec.
free does not restrict Bellfield’s to a limited range, as the tour guests were able to sample a variety of different beers from the tap room. The range continues to grow as the appetite for gluten free lifestyles increase. Indeed, the brand is now available throughout the county from Inverness to Newquay. Edinburgh Section Chair Russell Kimber gave the Bellfield team a much appreciated vote of thanks for their warm hospitability and an excellent tour, which was warmly seconded by the members present.
Joan Heery, President, PWI.
The session continued with the technical presentation of the day:
Anthony Harmes started by presenting the Plain Line Pattern Recognition (PLPR) systema suite of technology to inspect plain line CWR developed to replace the visual inspection (VI). It is a system that captures and processes images of the track using seven cameras. These images are reviewed to produce defect reports sent to track maintenance engineers. The system was developed as a part of the technological paradigm shift moving from find and fix to predict and prevent maintenance regime - from reactive to proactive. Anthony presented in detail the complex process from taking the images to generating the defect reports – based on machine learning image processing able to identify rail fastenings and other track components, and match track geometry to images. Currently PLPR runs on 1440 miles on the Western Route with circa 60 miles remaining across the route.
The last part of the session was presented by Steve Pearson, talking about the future developments in PLPR. The system provides precious image information of the track, and these images, together with the other data collected on track, can provide a complex and clear information set for the maintenance team. One development looking into this is the Enhanced Decision Support Tool. At the end of his presentation, Steve mentioned for further reading the article on PLPR written by Kevin Hope and published in the PWI Journal.
Following a vote of thanks, and announcements regarding up-coming PWI events, Gilles Moullec closed the meeting.
SECTION MEETING - SOUTH & WEST WALES. 9 December 2019. The Filton 4Tracking Project - John Hilliard, Associate Director, Engineering Integration Ltd.
Chair Andy Franklin introduced John Hilliard from Engineering Integration to an audience of 22 to make a presentation on the Filton Bank Capacity enhancement project, to use the official name and objective. In a riveting presentation using slides and video clips, John introduced Filton Bank with a high level ‘flyby’ over the 7km site which had been quadruple track until rationalised in 1984 through North Bristol. John was the Contractors Engineering Manager on contract from Engineering Integration to Taylor Woodrow who were the principal contractor for the project and Lead Design Organisation.
The project included work to 17 bridges and relaying 15km of track with extensive slewing to restore the 4track alignment. As much ALO working as possible was planned for this work which affected the selection of several design solutions. A detailed explanation was then given of the works undertaken during the project, starting at the overbridge at Dr Days Junction. Restoration of once abandoned alignments and optimisation of new alignments required stabilisation of both embankments and cutting faces. There was also an extensive Gabion Wall constructed at Horfield Cutting. Stapleton Road Viaduct required reconstruction for restoration of the main lines. After describing the reasoning to reconstruct as a 3span viaduct, John showed the design and planning phases and finally a time lapse video of the reconstruction. Complex works and integration within the project at Filton Abbey Wood to install an extra platform were simulated by 3D PDF drawings. BIM modelling was also undertaken for the main scope of the works. Critical works were impacted by existing signal locations and additional works were required by the signalling contractor to erect a signal cantilevered over the nominal 10ft space. To conclude the presentation a further run through of the project showed before and after photographs, time lapse videos of bridge reconstructions, junction remodelling in blockade works and photographs of track laying. There then followed questions very ably answered by our speaker with some further insight from visitors to the meeting who were involved in the scheme. A vote of thanks was proposed by Alan Wilkins who was involved in the rationalisation scheme in the 1980’s and carried unanimously.
SECTION TECHNICAL VISIT –EDINBURGH. 6 December 2019. Bellfield Brewery.
The 2019 Technical Visit was to the Bellfield Brewery, Abbeyhill, Edinburgh. The craft brewery itself is a fully self-contained unit, located immediately adjacent to the East Coast Main Line. The business started after the co-founder and now CEO was diagnosed coeliac in 2014. Uniquely, Bellfield specialise in brewing all its beer as gluten free, thus suitable for those who need or wish to avoid gluten, plus regular beer drinkers. The brewery achieves their product status using ingredients such as low gluten barley malt and maize whilst removing gluten at each stage. Brewing gluten
The Section acknowledges the support by Engineering Integration who kindly sponsored this presentation and provided John’s time to support the Section meeting.
SECTION MEETING – WESSEX. 10 December 2019. High Output Track Renewals: Developments for CP6 - Ben Brooks, High Output Alliance Director, Network Rail.
The Section Chair, Andy Jones, welcomed members and guests to the Route HQ at Basingstoke. Following the customary
Anthony Harmes and Steve Pearson, Network Rail.
preliminaries Andy introduced Ben Brooks, the Programme Director for the High Output Team. Ben has spent 20 years working track renewals, nine years of which has been as part of the High Output Programme. Throughout Control Periods 4 and 5 the team has sought to refine and improve the High Outout delivery of ballast and track renewals across the Network.
Ben introduced the presentation by outlining the structure of the programme and the key features of the four geographically based teams. These teams are divided into four distinct activities: Design, Planning, Works, Management and Engineering. The team acts in the role of “Principal Contractor” and they have set up a strong and established supply chain for all aspects of the material and workforce provision.
The Yellow plant consists of 17 units from both Plasser and Matisa, with a Fleet Engineering and Maintenance facility being further developed at Holgate in York. Train operational staff are approaching 250, with 40 drivers for the units.
It was emphasised that the planning aspect of the programme was key, due to the considerable number of length and gauge restrictions across the Network. Use of “adjacent line open” working required significant interface with the Route planning staff to ensure maximum use was made of available possession periods.
During CP5 a large number of innovations have been developed to improve the efficiency of the programme. Ben highlighted a number including:
1. Dust management during ballasting was a key issue for both staff health & safety and neighbour inconvenience
2. Surveys carried out by train bore equipment had reduced track visitation by staff
3. Wireless train warning systems had also improved reliability of such systems
4. Standardised paper processes and use of tablet computers had improved communication
5. Several small plant innovations have been developed
6. In the area of safety, the importance of road vehicle driving fatigue has been stressed to all staff
7. Community involvement has been developed to demonstrate the importance of environmental protection during operations.
In conclusion Ben brought us back to the vision statement for the programme: “One Team / Safe Delivery / No surprises” - no surprises within the team, for customers or for train passengers. A vision they remain fully focused to achieve.
Varied questions were poised and answered on several of the technical aspects of the High Output programme. A vote of thanks for an excellent presentation was called for by Andy Jones.
SECTION MEETING - WEST YORKSHIRE. 10 December 2019. Narrow Gauge Railways: A Worldwide GlimpseMorris Smith, PWI Honorary Life Member.
Sergio Neves led our thanks for this well organised presentation on the Narrow Gauge railways throughout the world. Morris ‘transported’ us from Argentina via the Alps to the Yukon more effectively than the “leading railway expert, Julian Holland.” (Quotation taken from cover of Great Railway Journeys of the World by Julian Holland, published by The Times in 2014). Divided into different gauges, Morris’ presentation gave more technical details than Mr Holland’s book and featured many of the same railways. Morris’
presentation also gave greater insight to the operation and customs of the various lines. It is difficult to imagine being allowed to dangle one’s legs from the side of trains here in Britain, however one of Morris’ photographs demonstrated it does happen, but Morris told us it is not a comfortable method of travel! One of the video clips included in Morris’ presentation enabled us to see – and hear! – the operation of some rather noisy winding gear!
SECTION MEETING – GLASGOW. 18 December 2019. Mince Pies, Mulled Wine and a Railway Quiz - an informal evening.
In a change to our planned presentation Chair Tom Wilson and Secretary Jim Watson presented a thought-provoking railway-based quiz with two rounds of “obscure Scottish railway” and “equally obscure railway” questions followed by a picture round. The winner was Andrew Anderson with Stephen Muirhead a close second. Jack Scott provided mulled wine to accompany an interesting discussion on some of the photographs used.
¬ excellent compression of “flange groove”, even at very low temperatures (tested down to - 25 °C) coupled with high load capacity in road direction for safe crossing of individual users.
STRAIL (UK)
Some Lessons Learned:
The Thameslink Programme: In Key Output 1 the main achievements were renewing Blackfriars and Farringdon stations, new Borough Market viaduct, 9km of new plain line track with refurbishment of the ‘core’ (St Pancras to Blackfriars) track slab, 15 power substation upgrades, and new traction power system on 20km of the Midland Main Line route. In Key Output 2 reconstructing London Bridge station, complete re-signalling/remodelling of London Bridge area, construction of new grade-separated junction at Bermondsey for Sussex and Kent trains, fit out of the Canal Tunnels and connections onto the East Coast Main Line with platform extensions and AC power upgrade, Automatic Train Operation(ATO*) / European Train Control System (ETCS Level 2) capability in ‘core’ for up to 24tph, stabling sidings and new depots at Three Bridges and Hornsey.
Programme achievements included the massive reconstruction of London Bridge engineered in phases hitting every entry into service milestone over the seven year period, extending Blackfriars across Thames with Solar roof and south bank entrance & sliding in new Borough Market viaduct over weekend possession. In ‘core’* stations installation of innovative platform level access zones reducing use of manual boarding ramps, new platform display screens with high quality info on forthcoming services and consistent wayfinding signage. ATO* over ETCS is now being used in ‘core’, initially at 20tph (*incl. London Bridge).
2. Infrastructure: consider infrastructure requirements during development of train specification. NR had no say. No cab side window in Class 700s required new stop boards and signal re-positioning
3. Rolling Stock: involve passenger groups in developing train facilities specification and interior option reviews. Trains were procured for both long distance commuters and metro users, resulting in hard seats and no tables
4. Depots & Stabling: depot site selection should consider Greenfield alternatives as they could involve less advanced works and avoid operational limitations. There are critical points on the Thameslink network with a shortage of long length stabling
5. Governance: develop a senior level forum a year in advance of planned timetable changes. Governance arrangements struggled to address the new Thameslink timetable introduction and the Programme and the GTR timetable change programme
6. Communications: with issues following delivery of new infrastructure around blockades, communications should be agreed and delivered jointly by Network Rail and Train Operators. During 2014 disruption passengers made it clear they did not want fragmented communications from different parties when things went wrong
7. Legacy Information: Thameslink Programme have a ‘Learning Legacy
Initiative’ which is an intuitive/user friendly and powerful support tool - www. thameslinkprogramme.co.uk
SECTION MEETING – THAMES VALLEY.
8 January 2020. Where is the Future Railway? - Dr Will Midgley, Loughborough University.
At our January meeting, held jointly with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Dr Will Midgley showed how rail vehicle technology has advanced over the last 50 years, compared to other transport modes, and some likely future options. As well as the drive to reduce carbon emission, there was a great need to increase rail capacity. Whilst tram, light rail and bus passenger numbers per mile had changed little, heavy rail use per mile was increasing significantly and hence heavy rail capacity needed to increase significantly too.
A 2012 ‘Rail Technical Strategy’, from the Technical Strategy Leadership Group, and a 2017 Capability Delivery Plan, pointed to four drivers for change:
1. Cost for user and government
2. Customer needs (eg comfort and timekeeping)
3. Carbon reduction and
4. Network capacity.
Goals in the Capability Delivery Plan to address these were:
1. Halve costs
2. Increase satisfaction from 90% to 99% 3. Halve carbon emissions and 4. Double train capacity on key routes.
97
operational problems impacting on more people and, to secure the most effective carbon reduction through electrification, the high infrastructure cost of £1.5m to £4m per single track kilometre. Solutions included making both train and track mechanically smarter such as through rail/wheel interface, turnout performance and overall train energy efficiency.
Will showed options for smarter bogies - one including a radial arm used to steer individual wheelsets, and one which utilised computercontrolled in-wheel electric motors to provide varying torque to each wheel within a wheelset, reducing traction energy, track wear and the particulates from friction braking. On the track, under a project named ‘Repoint’, a turnout design had been devised to eliminate moveable switch blades and to perfect geometry. Energy consumption data for diesel, bi-mode and tri-mode (diesel, mains electric and battery) showed electrification to be the best way to de-carbonise rail transport. Will set out a study chart model that enabled each component of demand and provision to be assessed.
A range of industry partners, including Network Rail and many university research departments, are now working together in the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) to make progress, for example through using real time data and reducing emissions (smarter trains), reduced infrastructure failures and constant communication (smarter track) and active wheelset responses to track (smarter bogies).
Audience discussion ranged widely, looking at the challenge of getting innovation accepted by the rail industry, the need to progress electrification and for co-ordinated research both on every aspect of railway asset development and on the needs of users.
A well supported vote of thanks was given by Thames Valley PWI Section Chair Jeremy Smith.
SECTION MEETING – EDINBURGH. 9 January 2020. Section AGM and Technical Quiz - hosted by Alan Morrison.
The meeting was opened by Section Chair Russell Kimber and commenced with the AGM. After some discussion of future 2020 events and the growth of the Section, the following officers of the Institution were elected from summer 2020:
Edinburgh Section Chair = Russell Kimber
Proposed = Mark Witham
Seconded = Alan Morrison
Edinburgh Section Secretary = Mark Taylor
Proposed = Andrew Blakeley
Seconded = Gordon McRae
Edinburgh Section Vice Chair = Vacancy
Proposed = N/A
Seconded = N/A
The evening then moved onto to the annual technical quiz. Quiz master and past Section Secretary Alan Morrison provided a challenging set of questions, covering a wide variety of subjects and locations. The teams battled through four rounds of tough questions to compete for the Syd Smith golden Pandrol trophy. The winning team including past Section Secretary Gordon McRae and Alistair McCaig were presented the trophy by past Section Chair Andrew Blakeley. Edinburgh Section Chair Russell Kimber acknowledged the members’ ongoing commitment over 2019 and gave quizmaster Alan a vote of thanks for a first-class quiz, which was warmly seconded by all those present.
SECTION MEETING – LONDON. 13 January 2020. Tram-train Initiative - Tim Kendell.
Vice-chair Mike Barlow introduced Tim, who had a long and varied railway career including at the Department of Transport where he had responsibility for light rail including close involvement with the Sheffield tram-train project.
Tim gave some possible definitions of the term “tram-train”. While trams do run on former heavy-rail lines (eg Manchester), the true definition involves sharing of tracks between trams and trains, with the trams running both on-street and on the main line. This is where complex issues arise in terms of infrastructure and vehicle adaptation. The tram-train initiative was first developed in Karlsruhe, Germany in 1961 when a local railway was connected to the city’s tram system. This improved connectivity between outlying towns and the centre of Karlsruhe, by eliminating the interchange at the main station on the edge of the city. Extra stops were provided on the railway but the tram-trains’ superior acceleration enabled journey times to be maintained, so tram-trains and ordinary trains could be scheduled on the same tracks. Further heavy-rail lines were subsequently adapted, and ridership increased considerably. Similar developments were implemented in other locations in Germany and elsewhere. UK authorities became interested in the concept. Sites were sought for a pilot project to assess tram-train’s feasibility and learn lessons for UK conditions. There might also be local commercial benefits, but this was secondary. Extension of the Sheffield tram system to Rotherham Central and beyond to a new station at Parkgate was selected, and a project team including the Department for Transport, Network Rail, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and Northern Rail was set up.
Tim explained the issues which had to be resolved. A main one is the wheel-rail interface. Tram wheels have thinner and shallower flanges than trains, suited to running on-street on grooved rail. The thinner flanges create a larger back-toback dimension which cause the wheels to hit the noses of fixed crossings in main line junction work. Also, shallower flanges could render tram wheels vulnerable to derailment on worn switches. The trams which would run on the shared section (actually, a new build of vehicle) accordingly have wheels with a thickened profile from 5mm or so above rail level, and deeper flanges. In association with this, raised check rails were fitted in main line junction work and deeper grooved rail was installed on the street sections.
Other matters to be addressed included signalling, including vehicle identification and protection (especially important, given the relatively low crash impact resistance of the tramtrains); vehicle end lighting; the need for lower platforms; the trespass risk from these; and of course, driver training.
As if to complicate matters still further, during the project Network Rail decided it needed to allow for future 25kV electrification of the line through Rotherham Central. This is a diversionary route for the main route via Masborough, which would be electrified if Midland Main Line electrification ever got beyond Sheffield. For the pilot project it was decided to limit the bridge raising to that needed for 750V, but the tram-trains are equipped for dual 750V/25kV. The tram-trains themselves are three-section vehicles, the outer sections having two doors each side and plenty of standing room for short rides, while the centre section has more seating for longer rides. The total capacity matches a Pacer. Maximum speed is 100 km/h. In spite of delays and extra costs, the pilot can be considered a success. We have a clear idea of what is involved in implementing tram-train: this will inform business cases for future projects. In addition, this particular project has led to
significant extra traffic and there is high user satisfaction.
SECTION MEETING - SOUTH & WEST WALES. 13 January 2020. High Output Track Renewals, Ready for CP6 - Doug Swinney, Network Rail.
Paul Dally was Chair to an audience of 20 active and retired members (in roughly equal numbers) that heard about developments in High Output since early trials of the equipment on the Swansea District line with which our speaker was familiar in 2002.
The presentation used slides and video to illustrate the equipment in use with commentary from our speaker of the logistics, planning and preparation to deploy a 3000t, 1200m train from Taunton to South Wales during a midweek line block of seven hours that may only allow 90 minutes of ballast cleaning or relaying. The team required to undertake the work was outlined including both at national and the local High Output Operating Base (HOOB), with major maintenance of equipment being carried out in main workshops. The HOOB at Taunton includes design engineers, signalling specialists as well as the train drivers and on-track plant operators.
High Output systems comprise Ballast cleaning and Relaying trains with relaying output dependent on rail string lengths of typically 270m units. For CP6 2HOBC and 1TRS will be deployed 52 weeks of the year with other machines on hot standby or under maintenance. In order to improve resilience and reliability, outputs have been scaled back from CP5 but CP6 will see 120km of ballast cleaning and 80km of relaying per annum to all routes in block campaigns. Overruns are banned or very rare events. Operator conditions have improved with guaranteed hours, and working conditions now minimise exposure to ballast dust with positive ventilation in operator cabs.
Environmental awareness includes lineside flora and fauna considerations, but with lineside vegetation clearance to improve lineside safety where necessary and possible. Recycling of site materials takes place with returned ballast screenings processed for use as highway fill aggregate.
Doug concluded by outlining the proposed programme for South Wales which includes challenges of ballast cleaning steel sleepered track with deep spades and through ballast depths that were specifically shallow. A comprehensive talk left the audience with much to think about and a short Q & A session was completed by an unanimously supported vote of thanks proposed by Craig Havard.
SECTION MEETING – LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE. 14 January 2020. Edinburgh Waverley Remodelling - Will Storey, Story Rail.
Will Storey’s presentation as Project Manager gave a detailed and highly interesting account of the permanent way and other works recently undertaken at Edinburgh Waverley station in order to improve the capacity of the track layout, when Story Rail was appointed to complete the works following the collapse of Carillion Rail as the original contractor. This included the lengthening of platforms at the west end of the station in order to accommodate longer Scotrail trains, and the reinstatement of the former Motorail bay platforms at the east end for passenger use by LNER services. A detailed account of the presentation has already appeared in the July and October PWI Journals (Glasgow Section, meeting of 13 February 2019 and Edinburgh Section, meeting of 2 May 2019 respectively), and hence will not be further reported here. The presentation was widely appreciated by the audience, and questions and discussion of the project took place both during the presentation and at its conclusion. The vote of thanks was given by John Parker.
www.goldschmidt.com
PWI TRAINING – PWI TRACK ENGINEERING DIPLOMA
20-23 January 2020. MODULE 1.
The PWI Track Engineering Diploma Module 1 course had 28 delegates from 11 companies and from locations all over the UK and Ireland. The companies were Network Rall, Tata Steel (Wales), Bridgeway, WSP, Volker Fitzpatrick, AECOM, ORR, Amey, Neary, RailTech and Track Technicians.
All passed and 11 were able to join the other 23 2019 Diploma awardees and get their final award. A few had them presented at NW Seminar Manchester and the rest will be done at other PWI events.
SECTION MEETING - WEST YORKSHIRE. 21 January 2020. High Output Track Renewals: Ready for CP6 - Mark Eves, High Output, Network Rail.
Mark described how High Output Renewals ‘sits within the corporate structure of Network Rail’ before explaining where this equipment, which extends to nearly half a mile long, is used. The equipment travels to and from site as a standard train, albeit one that is longer than many of the available loops. Consequently, merely getting to and from site is a considerable challenge. It is possible to shorten the train but doing so reduces the amount of work it can carry out. At circa £¼m per ‘appearance’ this must be taken into consideration. Similarly, because it is unable to work on Switch and Crossings, and can damage geotextiles, locations have to be carefully chosen to maximise results. The teamwork from an increasing number of depots distributed throughout Britain may be involved in several projects at any one time. As an example, Mark told us how work in progress on the actual track in Yorkshire occurs at the same time as preparation work is underway in Scotland, and plans being made for future work in the West Country.
Currently there are two trains and improvements have been made as to how the trains are maintained. A new facility in Britain means that the trains no longer have to be returned to the manufacturers in Europe. This eliminates transit delays that caused maintenance trips to take almost a year!
Intentionally brief to meet criteria for the Journal, this review is merely a glimpse of a fascinating presentation.
PWI SECTION SECRETARIES MEETING – BIRMINGHAM. 24 & 25 January 2020.
We discussed lots of great ideas to continue growing the PWI including videoing Section meetings, engaging with our younger members, and capturing the knowledge of our established members to enrich our community.
PWI TECHNICAL BOARD MEETING 4 February 2020. GWR Board at Paddington Station, London.
An incredible attendance with 32 people there. Full details on page 19.
NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP DAY 5 February 2020.
We were pleased to support National Apprenticeship Day where individuals, businesses and education providers across the UK celebrated the breadth of opportunities that apprenticeship schemes provide. It was great to see so many stories shared by apprentices, encouraging others to consider the same pathway.
SECTION MEETING - THAMES VALLEY. 5 February 2020. Level Crossings Suitable and Sufficient Risk Assessment - Andrew Allen, Senior Engineer, Aegis Certification Services.
Andrew set out a comprehensive introduction to the range of railway level crossings in Britain. Differing definitions of user priorities at level crossings prevail: the Collins English dictionary consider that they are places where a railway line crosses a road, whereas the ORR advise that they are where a railway is crossed by a road or right of way on the level; reflecting the superior legal status, from the earliest days of railways, of the railway over the road or path.
Thermit Welding is part of the Goldschmidt Group –the unique, global network of experts for the railways. Together we lead your rail infrastructure into the future – with smart solutions, services and products.
Network Rail is responsible for some 6000 of the 7500 level crossings across the country; the balance is on heritage railways, metro systems and industrial lines. NR policy is to close crossings wherever practical, not least in response to increased train frequencies and speed, but also for the obvious principle of minimising direct conflict between rail, road and pedestrian users. About half of all catastrophic accidents on the railway occur at level crossings. It has been possible to close around 300 crossings in recent years. Not all crossings can be eliminated and the ORR advocates that safe design, management and operation reduces user risk and has a positive effect on user behaviour. Key information is set out in the ORR guidance document ‘Level Crossings - A Guide for Managers, Designers and Operators (Rail Safety Publication 7 of December 2011)’.
The Health and Safety Executive provides general guidance on risk assessment. A ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment, as required in law, should include: that a proper check of the case has been made, the right people have been identified and consulted, the obvious significant risks addressed, and reasonable precautions are in place. Andrew illustrated the comprehensive process that Aegis follows to achieve an acceptable assessment. This comprises pre-survey data capture with sources ranging widely, site survey, risk management provisions analysis, cost benefit analysis, and discussion with interested parties about options and risks. The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) have made available a Level Crossing Risk Management Tool Kit (see www.lxrmtk.com).
A case study of an automatic half barrier unprotected crossing in a semi-rural location equipped with roadside telephones highlighted many issues and showed that in spite of carefully provided equipment, user discipline was the ultimate influence on user safety.
Questions explored the balance between control by the railway and initiative allowed to the user (contrasting UK and continental approaches), the drawbacks of some measures (such as audible warnings in residential areas), and the need to take advantage of mitigations in the hands of other parties such as the local highway authority.
A vote of thanks was proposed by Ray Pocock for a thorough and well-pitched presentation.
SECTION MEETING - EDINBURGH. 6 February 2020.
John presented a paper titled “High speed hand backs of track renewal sites” and commenced his views on the subject by reminding the audience that the original catalyst for higher hand back speeds originated from the introduction of the 125mph HST fleet in the late 1970s. It is acknowledged there were instances of higher line speed openings practiced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but these were never formally recorded by Intercity in an agreed procedure. When privatisation occurred in 1994, the fiveyear framework track renewals contract had no incentive for this strategy and the DTS etc ceased to be regularly utilised.
New style clamps were introduced in 1998 which enabled the temporary speed to be raised from 20mph with four traditional G clamps to 50mph with two Fassetta clamps (in conjunction with the associated conditions). These were to be further improved with the later addition of the Robel type 9 and type 10 clamp range, which only required a single clamp. In 2006, High-Output proposed to use two of these new clamps with a backhole arrangement to enable 80mph, due to long stretches of HO 50mph TSRs having a significant
performance impact. A deviation from the Railway Group Standard was agreed at the time to enable this.
Prior to 2014, the framework had no incentive for the contractor to take on the risk of higher speed opening, but this was to change for control period 5. Babcock’s formal adoption of higher hand back speed methodology for S&C commenced in 2013 on the WCML at Wigan Springs with a 50/80mph opening speed, which proved particularly challenging due to the presence of OLE headspans. Between 2013 and 2015 approximately five further sites on the WCML and ECML were completed. This was part of the catalyst for the CEC group to produce a high-speed procedure. At the same time Network Rail were also looking at new high speed 100mph ALR 1.25m plates utilising four clamps, but no bolt holes. In 2016, Bletchley was opened up by Babcock at 125mph, with eight items with high speed plain line in 2018 and 11 sites, including 125 mph Torness S&C on the ECML in 2019. Details of the sites are now recorded in a specific spreadsheet to enable the processes deployment to be mapped.
The key engineering risks of higher speed hand backs mean less room for error, greater attention to detail; verification of hidden works; and far greater consequences of failure, with additional cost and reputational damage risk.
To enable demonstration of a repeatable process being adhered to, the emphasis has embraced progressive assurance with clear quality control completion milestones recorded at each of the key seven stages by the authorised person:
1. Excavation
2. Bottom ballast laying
3. Bottom ballast compaction
4. First pass of tamper
5. Second pass of tamper – (third pass if TQ not achieved)
6. DTS as final pass (increased CRT)
7. Open at higher speed or Authorised Person takes a view if not suitable.
The Bomag vario-control roller has also been used on a number of occasions, which with it high levels of automatic control easily achieved the required 45MN/m2, although there have been challenges with uniformity between adjacent passes.
John closed the evening with a key piece of advice from experience using AFM: beware if you stop the machine, the DTS still keeps working - plus an important point to consider that higher speed opening may mean line speed, rather than high speed. Edinburgh Section Chair Russell Kimber gave John a vote of thanks for a systematic and informative presentation, which was warmly seconded by the members.
6 February 2020. Saudi Railway 50 degreesFraser Todd & Andrew Turner, Network Rail.
February’s talk entitled “Saudi Railway 50 degrees” was well attended with 36 members and visitors. The talk was given by Fraser Todd and Andrew Turner of the Section and covered their recent visit to Saudi Railways Organisation on behalf of NR Consulting, who had been retained to review inspection, maintenance and compliance of the track against standards. These had been based partly on NR practice.
After an explanation of the geography of the railway and which segments NR had been retained to review, they then described the track assets installed which included CEN 60 rail on concrete sleepers and two angles of switch units. As was expected, curved track was in short supply! Traffic on the two routes consisted of freight on one with large amounts of phosphate
or bauxite, and the other a mixture of freight and passenger.
They then reviewed the hazards of working in the country including the temperatures which limited working to between 4am and late morning, the distances between bases and locations of work, snakes and scorpions, and the impact of sand on the railway (never thought of sand fences!!!).
They then talked about the problems found and the issues these raised over the quantity / quality of inspections, and the impact of an apparent lack of detailed training and understanding of standards. Insufficient resources of various types and the overstretching of those who had the skills by the volume of defects and the distances needed to travel. All the local staff appeared to be willing to understand and learn from what they were told, but they had not had the reasons explained to them. Most problems appeared to be caused by a difference in understanding what maintenance is required of new infrastructure, and the belief that that new infrastructure would be maintenance free or have a low requirement.
The talk raised lots of questions which were answered by Fraser or Andrew with support from one or two others who had also been in Saudi Arabia.
PWI
WEEK. 10 February 2020.
We explored, discussed and celebrated the professional registration journey for the entire week. People joined our LinkedIn group Tech Talks to join in discussions and hear stories from engineers already professionally registered.
SECTION MEETING - SOUTH & WEST WALES. 10 February 2020. Getting the Railway off the Ground: the Liverpool Overhead Railway, Colin Brading.
In a change of subject from that originally advertised, Colin Brading was introduced by Vice Chair Paul Dally and invited to present “Getting the Railway Off the Ground: The Liverpool Overhead Railway”. Colin started by explaining that getting the infrastructure transfer for the South Wales Metro project off the ground was delayed, and this had caused the original presentation “Infrastructure Asset transfer for South Wales Metro” to be postponed until later in the year.
Colin started by explaining the development of Liverpool and its docks in the 1800s and the congestion that occurred in the docks area.
The overhead railway was opened in 1893 and was novel in many ways. It was overhead with a construction methodology that minimised the impact on the busy street life and railways below. It was electrified which was new technology at the time and used multiple unit trains which was like the overhead construction revolution in the UK. It also used automatic signalling.
The services were very popular and were extended to link with the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway but were essentially a service for the docks with 21 stations, and the railway was not grouped in 1923 or nationalised in 1948.
In 1955 a detailed structural survey was carried out of the trestle structures and deck of the railway which discovered serious corrosion due to the marine environment and the steam locomotives that worked dockyard freight underneath the ‘Dockers Umbrella’. In the climate of the time closure was opposed but was inevitable despite the popularity and ridership. Little now remains of the line and Colin discussed how, but for World War II, a circular route might have developed around Liverpool which would have integrated the system and perhaps justified repairs. Changes to the Dock landscape since the 1950s have also changed the travel patterns of public transport in Liverpool. A vote of thanks was proposed and supported unanimously by Stuart Layzell for a fascinating presentation on railways, Liverpool, social history and engineering.
SECTION MEETING - LONDON. 12 February 2020. London Bridge: Track Construction for the Thameslink ProgrammeJonathan Wright, Balfour Beatty.
The London Section held its first meeting at the new venue of TfL’s Palestra office on 12 February 2020. Jonathan Wright from Balfour Beatty presented on London Bridge: Track Construction for the Thameslink Programme.
Jonathan gave a brief history of London Bridge station since its opening in 1836 and the wider Thameslink Programme describing how the overall programme has delivered many different upgrade elements. He then took the meeting through the stages involved in delivering the new station at London Bridge including some of the temporary arrangements used to keep the station open. This included multiple commissioning stages with a variety of working times required, ranging from major blockades to mid-week daytime working with trains running on adjacent lines. He also demonstrated how the final layout of track provided at London Bridge and on the approaches facilitates the service increase that was the main objective of the Thameslink Programme. As well as the major station works delivered at London Bridge, Jonathan highlighted some of the other works delivered by the Minor Civils and the Electric Traction Equipment teams on the approaches to the station.
Jonathan highlighted the interface challenges in delivering the track required for the various stages of works. The interfaces ranged from structural limits and drainage and waterproofing to noise limits and engineering trains. One of the biggest challenges for the track construction was working with adjacent lines open which occurred at nearly all times due to the rarity of full 11-line closures on the approach to London Bridge. He explained how some of the challenging stages were delivered, and the approaches and innovations used. This included amending the modularisation of the Switch and Crossing units to use fewer larger panels enabling the modular panels to fit on fewer tilting wagons enabling shorter engineering trains to be used.
In Jonathan’s opinion the successes of the project were the management of design and construction interfaces, and the collaborative working between various contractors, helped by having clear programme goals with all parties incentivised to meet them. The vote of thanks was given by Mike Barlow.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION WORKSHOP - EXETER. 12 February 2020. Mark Woollacott and Paul Ebbutt held this Professional Registration workshop in Exeter. 13 candidates were supported on their journey.
PWI
24 February 2020.
We explored and celebrated what it means to be a young engineer today. Our members shared photos and stories from their youth as an engineer.
Arunkumar Mohandas, from across the globe is shown here with our President Joan Heery for the annual PWI event in Bangalore. Joan spent the day meeting members and talking about all things rail, she said “I would like to thank the Bengaluru Section for their warm welcome and hospitality. It was great to see a diverse range of organisations represented at the meeting....there was certainly plenty of knowledge sharing going on!”
The event was held at the Country Inn & Suites by Radisson Bangalore. It was sponsored by the PWI, organised by Arcadis and cosponsored by Alstom.
Joan Heery - PWI president, gave insights about the PWI team in the UK. She further explained the process of PWI membership, competencies required for Professional Registration and CPD. It was followed by technical presentations and discussions regarding the latest trends in PWay; how ready are we to take up digitisation in rail by Uday Awaradi from Arcadis Gecindia, and about Appitrack ballastless track laying equipment by Arun from Alstom India, which ended with a buffet dinner at the hotel networking with various rail engineers.
PWI NORTH WEST TECHNICAL SEMINAR. 4 March 2020.
This seminar was held in the Manchester Conference Centre on the 4 March 2020. PWI CEO, Stephen Barber, welcomed the delegates and introduced them to the format of the day, before welcoming the first speaker to take the stage. Full write up on page 60.
8 March 2020. We celebrated International Womens Day by paying tribute to the women in rail who play a major role in our community, and to the women in business who form the majority of our Institution’s core team. The faces of the PWI 2020 certainly represent the strength, creativity and intelligence of female leaders. We’ve already seen what this great team are capable of and we look forward to seeing more!
PWI ANNUAL EVENT – BANGALORE CHAPTER. 24 February 2020.
