the rail engineer - issue 101 - march 2013

MARCH 2013 - ISSUE 101

this issueq RESIGNALLING THE VICTORIA LINE 30q LOUGHOR VIADUCT REPLACEMENT 44q VEHICLE TESTING ON GCR 48q TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY 58

CBTC versus ERTMSThe Inter-Urban Metro. 16

Three Bridges ROCNetwork Rail’s ‘second generation’ rail operating centre at Three Bridges, Crawley. 22

The construction of Phase Two of Nottingham’s tram network has been going on for a while, but now is becoming more visible. 8

The Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge

Birmingham

TECHNOLOGY | DESIGN | M&E | S&T | STATIONS | ENERGY | DEPOTS | PLANT | TRACK | ROLLING STOCK

the railengineerby rail engineers for rail engineers

Trams extension to New Street 14

www.therailengineer.com

Issue 101 - tre March 2013 Friday.indd 1 25/02/2013 10:13

the rail engineer • March 2013 3

News 6Railways destroyed; services cut; improved rolling stock; and Crossrail 2.

Trams to New Street 14The £128 million extension to the Midland Metro moves into its next stage.

CBTC versus ERTMS - The Inter-Urban Metro 16In many ways they are quite similar but the two systems were designed for very different applications.

SelTrac goes Evergreen 20Thales’ successful SelTrac CBTC system has been proven worldwide on over 55 projects to date.

SSS - Sub Surface Signalling 26Bombardier Transportation’s sub-surface railway Automatic Train Control signalling upgrade for London Underground.

Universities and Railway Technology 34Professor Roger Goodall from Loughborough University gave a fascinating lecture to the IRSE. Clive Kessell reports.

Vehicle testing on the Great Central Railway 48As a private railway, the GCR can offer testing facilities up to 75 mph at any reasonable time and with a more flexible programme.

Japanese evolution comes to the UK 54TTS polymer cable ducting has evolved from 15 years of process and product development in Japan.

Reading Station - a year early 56There are still some challenges to be overcome and Easter is imminent.

Derailed: The Complicity Dividend 60A retrospective on the shenanigans surrounding the Beeching Report.

See more at www.therailengineer.com

Contents8

22

30

44


The construction of Phase 2 of Nottingham’s tram network is becoming more visible.

Resignalling the Victoria Line

Bombardier Transportation’s sub-surface railway Automatic Train Control signalling upgrade for London Underground.

Loughor Viaduct replacement

Second Generation Rail Operating Centre

We’re looking to highlight the latest projects and innovations in

ROLLING STOCK / DEPOTS / ON TRACKin the May Issue of the rail engineer.

Got a fantastic innovation? Working on a great project? Call Nigel on 01530 56 57 00 NOW!

Issue 101 - tre March 2013 PDFing.indd 3 25/02/2013 21:53

FOR INTERNATIONAL HIRE

PAISLEY CANAL PROJECT

COMMERCIAL TRUCKS ON THE ROADVERSATILE TOOLS ON THE TRACK

To hire road rail at its best call: 0870 050 9242, email [email protected], or visit our website www.srsrailuk.com

An SRS Rail System road rail wiring team stringing catenary and contact wires simultaneously on the Paisley Canal Electrification Project.A twin drum carrying wiring unit is furthest away. It is dispensing both catenary and contact wires at 75% full tension.

Linesmen on the mobile elevated work platforms are fixing the two wires in their correct positions temporarily in advance of a scissors platform from which permanent droppers will be fitted.

All vehicles are driven externally, from basket or platform.

Yet another example of SRS Road Rail’s expertise and flexibility.

Photograph by Jim W Gillies


Well, notice a difference? Those eagle eyed engineers amongst you might have picked up that we trialled our new magazine layout in the bumper 100th edition last month.

So, how old is an ancient shovel? Several blades and numerous handles later, the question has little meaning and so does any sentimentality over ownership. Does the same apply to a Brunel timber viaduct I wonder? Nothing of the Loughor viaduct in South Wales above water level is in any way ancient or indeed precious so it’s heartening to see that what had become a 1980s pastiche will be taken away and replaced by a thoroughly modern structure enhanced to remove all the capacity restraints of the old.

Charlie Buckingham of Carillion Rail tells us how the new bridge is being built alongside and the slide across – in the Loughor Estuary!

Clive Kessell gives us a guided tour of ERTMS and its lesser known cousin CBTC (Communications Based Train Control) which is primarily intended for Metro systems. That’s fine for metros that remain metros or main lines that remain main lines. There’s an inevitable snag though when metros have ambitions to expand into main lines or vice versa. Couple this with the fact that there are no standard CBTC systems and there’s scope for a deal of agonising.

Young minds stepping beyond current industry practices, thinking the unthinkable and challenging the rules – you can hear the sharp intake of breaths and the words, “Ah, but….”. Nevertheless, as Clive tells us, this is exactly what is being encouraged in our universities. There are bound to be outrageous ideas, and some of them will fall as being wholly impractical, but just hang on a moment. In every idea there could be something

worth developing, something that could lead to a whole new way of increasing capacity on our railways. So, give ‘em a chance.

Collin Carr’s latest on the Reading project centres on the new depot that is being built to the west of the station. It replaces a facility that will be demolished to make way for the new freight spur. And what does the admin office overlook? The Reading Festival stage!

The internet has some wonderful pin-sharp black and white images of an enormous lattice structure that spanned Nottingham Midland station. In fact they’re more grey and light grey. Did the sun ever shine in the 60s? Some thirty years after it was cut up for scrap, a brand new bridge – the Karlsruhe Friendship bridge – is being launched across the station to carry Line Two, the latest extension to Nottingham’s tram system. The city is rightly proud of this expansion of urban transport. They’ll be well on the way to matching Karlsruhe’s 76km.

On the subject of trams, we’ve a preview of the Birmingham extension along with the general refurbishment to the existing system in advance of the arrival of a completely new batch of trams.

For some heritage railways, 25mph is just about as fast as you would want to go. But the Great Central Railway was built as a main line and so a preserved section lends itself to being upgraded to something like its original line speed. The process is complex but straightforward, as Stuart Rackley tells us. So, if you have wagons to brake test at 60mph or a brand new locomotive you want to thrash, away from the national network, then here’s the place for you.

Fifty years ago, that’s two generations, all the pent-up frustration against the railways

was concentrated in what became known as the Beeching report. It’s perhaps difficult to imagine the gulf between much of the general public and the railway system. The railways were seen as a huge museum existing in an age where the motor car was the favoured transport of delight. Spectacularly dangerous rust buckets they may have been, but the Triumph Heralds and the like of the time had superseded the motor bike and sidecar as the preferred family vehicle. Graeme Bickerdike looks behind the scenes and explains just what was going on and what happened to that map of closures that caused such a shock.

As we go to press, the movement of the spoil heap at Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster continues inexorably, resembling a mud pie left out in the rain. Unsurprisingly, the parties involved have made little comment apart from emphasising the serious impact on rail services. Analysing the causes and putting it all right will be the stuff of text books for years to come.

In complete contrast, we cover techniques that are intended to install track crossings with the minimum of disturbance - little vertical and certainly nothing sideways. So, if you have a cable that you need to pass under the railway, have a check to see what is now available. It’s all getting pretty high tech with sophisticated hydraulics and lasers. But inevitably there’s a need for a guy with a shovel for the larger stuff.

Although it’s still a cold and grey February, don’t forget to put Railtex in your diaries. It’s only a couple of months away, so make a note of the details which you’ll find in the news section of the magazine. Register in advance for free or it’s £20 (twenty pounds!!) on the door. Bit of a no-brainer really.

From the new to the old GRAHAME TAYLOR

EditorGrahame [email protected]

Production EditorNigel [email protected]

Production and designAdam O’[email protected]

Engineering [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

AdvertisingAsif [email protected]

Paul [email protected]

the rail engineerAshby House, Bath Street

Ashby de la Zouch

Leicestershire, LE65 2FH

Telephone: 01530 56 00 21

Fax: 01530 41 21 66

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.therailengineer.com

Editorial copyEmail: [email protected]

Free controlled circulationEmail: [email protected]

The small printthe rail engineer is published by

RailStaff Publications Limited and

printed by Pensord.

© All rights reserved. No part of this

magazine may be reproduced in any

form without the prior written

permission of the copyright owners.

Sister publication of



NEWS

NEWSthe rail engineer • March 20136

Tackling the sogginess Even the most unobservant reader will have noticed that it has rained a bit over the last few months. Floods and landslips around the country have played havoc both with the infrastructure and train punctuality.

Sir David Higgins, chief executive of Network Rail, is very conscious of the problem and is galvanising his team to tackle it. “The damage that extreme weather can do to a Victorian rail network which was neither designed nor built for such challenges is clear. Whole lines were closed by flooding and tracks came close to being washed away by rivers which burst their banks. On the worst affected parts of the network, torrential rain caused up to sixty landslides in a single day.

“This has been a wake up call for the whole industry, which we ignore at our peril. As we set out when we launched our strategic business plan in January, we are playing catch up on decades of under-investment. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the embankments, cuttings, bridges,

tunnels and other structures which have struggled to cope with extreme weather, alongside the burden of carrying more passengers than they were designed for. Our submission to the regulator for the next five-year funding settlement reflects our plan to tackle this.

“Despite considerable challenges, the industry still managed to move more than three million people a day by train during this period, with almost nine-out-of-ten trains arriving on time. This is testament to the hard work of all our staff and those working for our partners. However, this does not undermine the need for us to do even more, including better investment in our assets, to be able to improve resilience and recovery during extreme weather in the future.”

Railway destroyed at Hatfield and StainforthOn Saturday 9 February, the driver of a train passing Hatfield Colliery near Stainforth in South Yorkshire reported a “rough ride”. By 12 February, the line between Doncaster and Goole/Scunthorpe was closed. A Network Rail spokesman said that conditions had “deteriorated significantly”. In fact, the railway had all but disappeared as the colliery spoil tip had moved onto the railway, carrying trees and tracks before it.

A rotational slip rather than a simple landslide, the ground had both moved sideways and upwards, tearing up the tracks and twisting them out of shape.

Ten days later, the ground was still moving and Network Rail and colliery engineers were banned from the area. The fear is that any action taken to remove the encroaching material will just spark off another slide. The latest estimate is that the railway will be closed completely for at least eight weeks, possibly longer.

Freight trains are being sent on a long diversion. Passenger trains have been replaced by buses.

Improved 315sThe first of Greater Anglia’s Class 315 train fleet to be fitted with an automated Passenger Information System have returned to service. The entire 61-strong fleet is being fitted with the system which will deliver timely and accurate information to passengers during their journey with automatic announcements and scrolling text on screens in each vehicle.

The work is being managed by the fleet owners Eversholt Rail Group and carried out by Bombardier Transportation at their depot in Ilford. Work commenced in December 2012 with the first units being 315803 and 315827 which are now in passenger service.

At the same time, wheelchair bays are being installed which can accommodate two wheelchairs. ‘Tip-up’ seats are being fitted in the wheelchair area, along with

additional signage to identify priority seats for elderly or mobility impaired passengers.

John Ratcliffe, engineering director of Greater Anglia, said: “The improvement programme for our Class 315 trains will offer passengers better information provision and much improved accessibility, which are both extremely important in making rail travel an attractive and easy option for all.”


NEWS

NEWS the rail engineer • March 2013 7

Beechingski At a time when British railways are “celebrating” 50 years since the Beeching cuts of 1963 and onwards, another railway in financial difficulties is going through the same pain. Polish State Railways (PKP) has drawn up plans to pay off debts totalling 4.3 billion zloty (€1 billion) and these include suspension of rail services across ten percent of the network.

Although not called a ‘closure’, some 90 routes and 2000 km of track will be taken out of service in December 2013. The track will remain in place, and a skeleton staff will monitor it, so that services can be restored at a later date if trading conditions improve.

Closing the routes could save 60 to 80 million zloty (€14.3 -19.1 million) per year. While a few train services will be lost, several of

the routes had not been used for either passenger or freight traffic for some time. A total of 500 jobs are reportedly at risk.

As part of the same process, PKP is also looking to sell off some stations. It currently owns around 2,500 railway stations, although only 600 of them are in use. Of the rest, 50 could be sold quite soon with up to 800 seemingly on the ‘hit list’.

Crossrail 2 breaks cover Discussions are out in the open on the proposed route for Crossrail 2, the north-south project to follow on behind the east-west Crossrail currently under construction.

London First published a report supporting the case for Crossrail 2 which has been authored by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis. The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy already identifies the need for Crossrail 2 post-2020.

Transport for London (TfL) leads on the transport planning aspects of Crossrail 2 and has been undertaking work on this issue over the last 18 months.

Michele Dix, managing director of planning at TfL, said: “The capital needs continuous long term investment in its transport infrastructure to keep pace with London’s increasing population and to support economic growth. TfL has been considering the route options for Crossrail 2 in light of this as well as the impact from projects such as the Government’s proposals for HS2.

We are currently considering two options for the route. We will be developing these options in more detail before carrying out a strategic consultation starting this spring.”

The first option is a London

metro scheme linking Wimbledon with Alexandra Palace via Clapham Junction, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road and Euston/King’s Cross St Pancras.

The second option is a London

regional scheme taking the same central underground corridor as the first option but would go through the Upper Lea Valley towards Hertfordshire and potentially Stansted in the north and continuing to Kingston, Surbiton and Epsom in the south.

Both routes are different from the already-safeguarded route between Wimbledon and Epping. Some of these alterations have been driven by the need to take in Euston which will be the terminus for HS2.



The construction of Phase Two of Nottingham’s tram network has been going on for a while, but much of it has been hidden from view. Now, though, there are some exciting developments that, for the first time, show clearly that the project is well on the way. The most visible of these is an iconic new bridge which has appeared adjacent to Nottingham railway station.

First of all - a bit of background. Councillor Jane Urquhart, portfolio holder for Planning and Transport at Nottingham City Council, has been involved with NET since she was first elected to the Council in 2000. She became closely acquainted with the construction of the first line between Hucknall/M1 junction 26 and Nottingham railway station. This was not without its controversies at the time, but has since become a great success. Jane says that even some of its strongest detractors have come to see that it was actually a good idea after all!

Learning for successJane feels that important lessons were learned during the

construction of Line One. These included the necessity of getting closely involved with the detail of local issues, the importance of providing easily accessible information in large quantities by diverse means of distribution on a frequent basis, and the need to be prepared to adjust the scheme details and programme when this is required to overcome local issues. There are definitely some pointers here for other controversial projects (HS2 anyone?).

CHRIS PARKER

the rail engineer • March 20138


Phoenix Park(A610)

Toton Lane(A52)

Clifton Lane (A453)

M1 J26

M1 J25

Bulwell

Hucknall

Nottingham

Planned extensionto Chilwell

Planned extensionto Clifton

R I V E R T R E N T



In Jane’s opinion, Line One has been a resounding success. Since its opening, all other local public transport modes have seen increased growth rates in addition to the new traffic on the trams themselves. NET Phase Two will build upon this success, adding key destinations including Queen’s Medical Centre, the University of Nottingham, Clifton, Beeston town centre, Chilwell and M1 junctions 24 and 25 to the tram network.

The city council is part-funding both the new tram lines and the current improvement works at Nottingham railway station from its workplace parking levy. In December 2011, Nottingham City Council awarded the Net Phase Two contract to Tramlink as part of a twenty-five year PFI (private finance initiative) concession. Construction is being delivered by a joint venture between Taylor Woodrow and Alstom. Some 600 people are currently being employed in connection with NET Phase Two, so it is an important source of local employment.

Future developmentsNottingham City intends to add further transport

network improvements in the future. There are ambitions to take forward further tramlines - the original feasibility studies in the 1990s considered six or seven possible lines and there is potential to go ahead with these or shorter extensions to existing lines in the future. In Kimberley there is already a campaign for the existing Line One to be extended there.

The council is interested in the tram/train concept, which is seen as offering possibilities for extending services outside the tram network onto some of the under used (or indeed unused) ‘heavy rail’ lines in and around the City. Also, fully integrated electronic ticketing covering all modes is a firm objective.

Asked about the possibility of an East Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, Councillor Urquhart said that Nottingham City Council is already a partner in a local enterprise partnership with the County Council and their equivalents from Derby and Derbyshire. This is recognised by Government and good relationships are being built. There is seen to be potential for extending this to cover the whole of the East Midlands by agreeing to join up with Leicester City and Leicestershire County councils.

One of the termini of the two new tram lines that make up Phase Two is at Toton, close to the newly-announced HS2 hub. Naturally, Cllr Urquhart, Tramlink chief executive Phil Hewitt, and Martin Carroll, NET Phase Two project director for the Taylor Woodrow Alstom joint venture, are all very enthusiastic about the prospect of connecting this into the NET network. The hub will be within the area of Broxtowe Borough Council, but there is likely to be close co-operation between the two councils to ensure that the relatively short link could be constructed. Indeed, the view appeared to be that the tram might get to the hub site before HS2 itself!

Back to the bridgeMartin and his structures expert Andy Bannier

described the important features of the Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge and its construction. The key players in the works are the Joint Venture (JV), together with Cleveland Bridge Engineering and Mammoet. The first half of the bridge recently appeared high above ground level on a site at Crocus Street on the Queen’s Road side of Nottingham Station. Visible over a wide area, it is the most obvious indication of the progress of NET Phase Two. When completed, the bridge will be 104 metres in length and 14.5 metres wide.

Because of the restricted size of the erection site, it was only possible to assemble one half of the Warren Truss structure. This was slid some 50 metres towards its final position in order to free up the site for the erection of the other half of the truss. The two will then be connected before the whole thing is slid the rest of the way to its final resting place.

Two permanent piers to support the bridge have been constructed between Queen’s Road and platform 6 of the Station and between platform 1 and Station Street. A third, central pier is under construction within the listed station buildings on Platforms 4 and 5. This has meant removal of part of the roof, and has been closely supervised by the authorities because of the listed status of the buildings.


Issue 101 - backup 7am 22nd Feb.indd 10 25/02/2013 22:16

New bridge - old alignmentThe new bridge will sit on the exact line of its

predecessor, the old Great Central Railway bridge, removed in the early 1980s. Two of the foundation caissons of the old bridge are being re-used to provide part of the support to the new structure, although they have had to be strengthened with mini-piles. The remaining foundation loads will be carried by CFA (continuous flight auger) piles.

Like the old Great Central bridge, the new one will be flanked by two smaller bridges, one over Station Street and the other over Queen’s Road. The site hoardings are decorated with aerial photographs of the old structures, an interesting comparison with the new works now taking shape.

The sliding of the first half of the bridge started on the night of Monday 11 February 2013 and continued each night of that week up until completion just over a week later. The bridge finished up spanning Queen’s Road at the end of this phase of the slide. To that effect it had been erected horizontally at a level 7.3 metres above that of the road. When the full bridge reaches its final resting place across the Station, it will be lowered somewhat and will be on a gradient, in order to match up with the existing tram viaduct on the city side and the new works to be built on the other side of the station. In total the bridge will have moved by around 100 metres horizontally when it is finally in place.

The design of the structure has had a significant effect on the sliding design, due to the significant stresses arising from the temporary support conditions involved.

During the second slide it needs to span 52 metres across the station between permanent supports, although temporary trestle piers are being used at intermediate points to reduce the gaps encountered during the first slide across Queen’s Road. The forces generated at the temporary points of support will be very high. The tubes of the trusses are 711mm in diameter and have 40mm wall thickness and, although they were hot rolled for greater strength, they can still only be propped within 1.3 metres either side of each of the truss nodes as propping elsewhere along the bottom boom tubes would overstress the structure.


Issue 101 - backup 7am 22nd Feb.indd 11 25/02/2013 22:17

side of each of the truss nodes as propping elsewhere along the bottom boom tubes would overstress the structure.

Japanese steelSteelworks sub-contractor Cleveland Bridge

Engineering had a choice of only two rolling mills worldwide that could hot roll steel tubes of the required thickness and diameter, one in Korea and the other in Japan. The latter were successful in winning the order.

The strength issue meant it was not possible to install the 250mm thick reinforced concrete deck nor the tram tracks prior to the sliding operations, since this would have overstressed the bridge during the slide. However, during the second stage slide, significant counterweight will be needed at the rear end of the bridge to balance it as it cantilevers between supports at its front end. This weight will be provided by installing the rear quarter of the deck, meaning that the total weight of the structure being slid will be around 1100 tonnes and be 104 metres long!

The size of the trusses of the bridge obviously precludes bringing them to site in one piece from the fabrication shop. Smaller sections have therefore been brought and joined on site. This means welding connections on site and painting the affected areas on site afterwards. Cleveland Bridge is taking responsibility for all of this, including the painting in the shop and on site.

Lifting and slidingSub-contractor Mammoet is in charge of the specialist

lifting and sliding operations, and has also supplied some of the specialist craneage required for the site erection works. Taylor Woodrow has coordinated and managed the temporary works.

At each permanent or temporary support pier there is a PTFE coated bearing plate under each of the two bottom booms of the bridge. While the bridge is being slid, its weight is taken at each of these points by a sliding saddle, shaped to fit the tubular section of the booms. The saddles sit and slide on the baseplates, which are sufficiently long to allow a slide of 2.6 metres to be made.

Once a slide has been completed it is necessary to return the saddles to the start of the baseplates so that a further 2.6 metre slide may begin. To permit this, at each baseplate there are two movable jacking supports. These can be placed anywhere on the baseplate to be clear of the sliding saddle and within the permitted part of the bottom boom. They contain jacks which lift the truss clear of the sliding saddles so that these can be relocated as required. It was anticipated that relocating all of the sliding saddles in this manner would take around an hour. Once this has been completed, the slide can recommence for the next 2.6 metres.

To reduce the loadings on the bridge as it cantilevers between supports 52 metres apart, a 13 metre long launch nose has been added to its front end. This means that the relatively light nose lands on the next pier some 13 metres before the main truss and transfers some of the weight to the pier as it reaches it. Consideration was given to building a nose that would also serve as the permanent structure, or at least a part of it, for the Station Street bridge. Unfortunately this did not prove to be a practical or economic idea.

The completed bridge will carry twin tram tracks with 3 metre wide public walkways on each side of them. It will form a key part of the interchange arrangements between the rail station, the new tram stop between Queen’s Road and platform 6 and the bus stops on Queen’s Road. This iconic structure will highlight the NET system and the progressive ambitions of the City of Nottingham.



14th March 2013, Loughborough University

Tickets now on sale at www.railsafetysummit.com

Colin Wheeler, Chairman

Allan Spence, Director of Safety Strategy, Network Rail (ORR)

Colin Dennis, Director, RSSB

Darren Selman, Health & Safety Manager - Assurance, Crossrail

Emma Head, Head of Workforce Safety, Network Rail

Iain Boardman, Head of S&SD Engagement, Network Rail

Dr. Ian Gaskin, General Manager - SQE, Transport for London

& Jill Collis, Director of Health, Safety and Environment, Transport for London

Paul Russell, Head of CIRAS

Richard Sharp, Chairman, Infrastructure Safety Leadership Group

Simon French, Deputy Chief Inspector, RAIB

Steve Diksa, Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

Syd Scrace, Approvals and Homologation Manager, Hitachi Rail

>

> Introduction to the Incident Factor Classification System and the risk from road vehicle driving

> Target Zero – Raising Safety Standards Across Multiple Sites

> Workforce Safety – The 10 Point Plan

> Lifesaving rules

> A conversation on safety leadership

> CIRAS – It’s Purpose

> The investigation of railway accidents in the UK

> Complacency – the Hidden Hazard

Safety strategy – seizing the agenda

The Rail Safety Summit has become THE conference for rail safety executives,

infrastructure owners, train operators, rail stakeholders and training professionals,

with all leading figures from the rail safety, security, risk assessment and training

professions all in attendance.

360° interactive media system

Target zero, rules and

equipment have improved

safety but to go further we

now need the hearts and

minds of all railway people.

BUT HOW?

With so many methods of

communication available in

the modern world, does face

to face communication still

have a role to play in safety?

Which is the more important

in safety management -

statistics and management

to identify future actions

or personal accountability,

commitment and the ability

to relate to people?


Next month will see the opening of the new section of concourse at Birmingham New Street station. This will be the first major public milestone in the Birmingham Gateway project, the progress of which THE RAIL ENGINEER has covered for the last few years.

However, New Street is not the only major transport project underway in Britain’s second city, although the two are very much linked. The £128 million extension to the Midland Metro moves into its next stage at Easter with the temporary closure of the line. Principal contractor Balfour Beatty is taking the opportunity to enlarge platforms on the network, in readiness for the new fleet of trams that will enter service late in 2014.

Today’s networkCurrently, the Midland Metro runs from

Wolverhampton to Birmingham over a 12.5 mile route which largely uses the trackbed of the former Great Western Railway line from Wolverhampton Low Level to Birmingham Snow Hill. The first two stops in Wolverhampton are conventional, street-based tram halts, but the line then joins the old GWR route at Priestfield. From there, the

Metro follows the old GWR route exactly, with tram stops replacing the original intermediate stations, through three tunnels, over four canals and under the M5 to Birmingham Snow Hill.

Opened in 1999, the line is run by a fleet of sixteen T69 trams made by AnsaldoBreda in Italy. The 24.5 metre long vehicles have a capacity of 158 people (56 seated) and a top speed of 43mph.

Trams to New Street

NIGEL WORDSWORTH



ExtensionPlans for the Birmingham City Centre

Extension were first proposed in 2005. This would take the tracks through the city centre to Five Ways Island on the ring road at the far end of Broad Street. After a brief look into the cost of building an underground railway instead, found to be prohibitive, a scaled-down version of the plan was adopted in late 2008.

The extension will branch off between St Pauls and Snow Hill station. A new stop, still called Snow Hill, will be constructed on the existing railway viaduct at Livery Street/Lionel Street. From there, the extended line will take in stops at Bull Street and Corporation Street before reaching the new terminus at Stephenson Street, alongside Birmingham New Street station - a total extra distance of 0.8 miles.

More vehicles will be needed to run the extended service and, rather than adding a few new ones, Birmingham City Council decided to replace the entire fleet. Twenty Urbos 3 trams have been ordered from Spanish manufacturer CAF, similar models to the ones recently supplied to Edinburgh. Longer than the originals, with the capacity increased to 200, each five-section air-conditioned tram has two dedicated spaces for wheelchair users and its features will be fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. In addition, each section will have passenger information and CCTV information and protection. The £40 million contract includes an option for a further five vehicles.

Easter closureSo, back to the work that is taking place at

Easter. The line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton will be shut after the last tram on Good Friday (March 29) and reopen on Monday April 15 to allow engineers to modify existing platforms to accommodate the fleet of larger trams. When these enter service, the current route during 2014 they will enable Centro, the region’s transport authority, to increase the system’s frequency to 10 trams an hour throughout the day. This will increase capacity by 40 per cent, easing the overcrowding that can sometimes occur during the morning peak.

All the new trams will be running by 2015 when the extension opens. Before then, and after the platform works are completed, the new track will be laid through the city’s streets. Already, Stephenson Street is closed to traffic as services are diverted in preparation for the track-laying works. However, laying tracks on

Corporation Street, used by over 140 buses an hour during peak periods, will certainly be a challenge for the project team.

New signalling will be needed, in a contract yet to be let by Balfour Beatty, and this will be controlled from the existing signalling centre at Wednesbury.

Any £128 million project is significant. Only because the new extension is overshadowed by the £600 million refurbishment of Birmingham New Street station has it not had the coverage it might have. But The Rail Engineer is on the case, and will publish further details as they develop.

Trams on Corporation Street (above) and Stephenson Street (below).



A number of articles have been written in The Rail Engineer about two modern signalling systems - ERTMS and CBTC. In many ways they are quite similar, but the two systems were designed for very

different applications on different types of railway. However, as there are areas when they overlap - one of them being Crossrail - it may be a good time to examine the similarities, and differences.

First of all, here is a quick reminder as to what the systems are:

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) is a standard for Automatic Train Protection (ATP) with the capability of incorporating cab signalling functionality and with the intention of achieving interoperability across country borders. Its component parts are i) ETCS - European Train Control System, ii) GSM-R - the radio transmission bearer, iii) ETML - European Traffic Management Level, which as yet has still to be developed.

CBTC (Communications Based Train Control) is an integrated control and signalling system incorporating Automatic Train Protection (ATP), Automatic Train Operation (ATO) plus interlocking and control centre functionality such as train identity, routing, station stops and door control.

Moving block to allow shorter distances between trains when travelling slowly is often a requirement.

ERTMS has its genesis in the desire to standardise long distance main line control and operation whereas CBTC is essentially aimed at city metro systems where a high throughput of trains is required on dedicated lines. So far so good - but what happens when a metro type railway is extended out into the suburbs, perhaps to share tracks and stations with mainline trains often for several tens of kilometres?

Neither system is entirely appropriate for mixed operation of this kind so what are the factors and constraints that will decide the compromise needed to achieve successful operation? Nowhere is this dilemma more focussed than in London with its Thameslink and Crossrail

projects but other cities around the world are having to face the same challenge.

Operational requirementsThe basic requirement of any city

centre metro is the ability to move as many people as possible in peak hours. This in turns requires long and very frequent trains combined with slick station operation. Typically 30 trains per hour (tph) in each direction are specified but more than this can be achieved. Such a frequency requires ATO so that train acceleration, speed and braking are optimised. Automatic door opening and even closing can save precious seconds.

Where a line is not just end-to-end and alternative routes have to be traversed, junction control is crucial with approach speeds optimised to avoid stopping or hard braking when conflicting movements across flat crossings take place. The spacing of trains

to give an even time between station waits is important as this regulates crowd control. All of this has been at the heart of CBTC design and many metro railways are equipped with such systems, including some in the UK.

Once away from the city centre, the density of train service often thins out, sometimes because different routes are taken by successive trains or maybe some trains stop short of the final destination. The requirements, particularly those relating to headway, are therefore less onerous and it is thus possible to adopt another control philosophy for these areas. This could allow a simpler system to be used but will equally cause non-unified operation for the overall journey.

ERTMS for Metro applicationA system designed for main

line application is unlikely to be the preferred choice for a metro.

THE INTER-URBAN METROCLIVE KESSELL

CBTC vs ERTMS



However, where a cross city line extends out into the suburbs on lines already equipped with ERTMS, can the same system be used in the city centre section? The answer will depend on the operational need and the business case, with technical issues not necessarily being the dominant factor. ERTMS does not come with an ATO option and thus to take the standard ETCS Level 2 package as currently designed will require manual driving. Bolting on an ATO package is thought not to be too difficult and indeed this may be a requirement for some main line applications in the foreseeable future.

ERTMS, in its present guise, will also not support moving block and the prospect of achieving this will only come with ETCS Level 3, a system that has been envisaged for some time but with little progress being made to date. Using an ERTMS system to integrate with door controls is not practical although automatic opening could be achieved by other technologies separate from the control system. Throughput will therefore suffer and around 25 trains per hour will probably be the practical upper limit.

CBTC potential and analysisThat CBTC has taken advantage of modern electronic and

computing developments is not in doubt. Pioneered by SEL Canada for metros in Toronto, Vancouver and Detroit, the first SelTrac system emerged in the early 1980s. With SEL becoming Alcatel and latterly Thales, the design has been upgraded over the years moving from a track loop to a radio based system that is now in service in many other cities including London on the Jubilee Line and Docklands Light Railway.

All the other main signalling suppliers have since developed CBTC products of their own and these are deployed around the world to meet the same basic requirements of close headways, automatic operation, train supervision and maximum throughput. The technological advancement has not been matched with any kind of standardisation and thus the different systems are all bespoke designs that have little commonality in engineering terms other than to meet the same basic operational specification.

This is acceptable for a ‘closed’ railway where trains are captive to a fixed route or group of routes, but becomes a real problem when different routes merge or overlap, even when different lines are controlled from the same centre. Extending the CBTC system out onto main line suburban routes further compounds the problem for which there is no real solution at present.

The London DilemmaAt first glance, Thameslink and Crossrail are similar types of extended

inter-urban metros: one goes north-south, the other goes east-west. Both link (or will link) existing main line suburban routes with a cross city connection. The origins of both projects are, however, entirely different.

Thameslink started life in the late 1980s as a very small scheme under the auspices of the BR Network South East business to reinstate a disused tunnel linking Farringdon on the erstwhile City Widened Lines branch to Moorgate with Blackfriars adjacent to the old Holborn Viaduct station. Its length was short - around 1km - and thus the cost was comparatively small, the railway being controlled by extending and interconnecting the West Hampstead and Victoria (actually at Clapham) signalling centres. Traction changeover from third rail to 25kV overhead takes place at



Farringdon. Later enhancement extended the tunnel to create City Thameslink station, allowing the closure of Holborn Viaduct station and the removal of Ludgate Hill railway bridge.

Its initial service was modest - around 8 trains per hour in the peak - as these had to share tracks with the Moorgate trains. The subsequent closure of the Moorgate branch has permitted this number to increase but it is still way short of potential demand and thus the present project, which also includes capacity for 12 car trains, is an upgrade of an existing railway.

Crossrail was also a vision of Network South East to create a new tunnel between Liverpool St and Paddington with a price tag in the 1980s of £1 billion. The regrettable delay under successive governments, the work required to get the necessary statutes and Royal Assent, and the need for central funding, all put the scheme back by some twenty years, until the project became the initiative of Transport for London (TfL). This is therefore a new railway on a much grander scale with work well underway to dig the tunnels and which will open in 2018 at a projected cost of £15 billion.

Both projects plan a service of 24 trains per hour (tph) and this can be achieved using ERTMS with an ATO enhancement. However, Crossrail anticipates a greater frequency of trains in the longer term and must make provision for this at the design stage. Being a TfL project, it is also very much influenced by metro style thinking and thus the decision has been taken to equip the central section with CBTC. This however will

lead to complications for trains that emerge onto the Great Western main line, which is to be equipped with ERTMS by the time Crossrail opens, and onto the Great Eastern and North Kent lines, which will be controlled under the classic AWS (Automatic Warning System) and TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) for the foreseeable future.

The trains will therefore need to be equipped with four systems, not something a rolling stock engineer would wish for but perfectly possible if designed in at the time the trains are built, the contract for which has yet to be let. The operators will also have to contend with drivers needing to know the three basic systems and any set up routines at the changeover points.

Thameslink, as has been explained, is very much a Network Rail initiative and with the declared intention of adopting ERTMS as a national standard, the upgraded line will be equipped with this system plus a yet to be designed ATO package. This will ensure compatibility with the East Coast main line for trains that run through towards Peterborough and Cambridge as this will also be an early ERTMS conversion. However the trains will still need to have AWS and TPWS fitted as it will be some years before the Midland Main Line and the Southern routes south of Blackfriars are upgraded to ERTMS. It is to be hoped that a solution to the data handling capacity of ETCS due to the limitations of GSM-R will have been found before the full Thameslink project is completed.

Other city experiencesSimilar challenges have existed elsewhere in

the world, some examples being:

Madrid Suburban. The tunnel linking Chamartin and Atocha

stations in the north and south of the city has been enhanced to give greater capacity on the suburban network. Having looked at options and mindful of cost and interworking, this central section has been equipped with ERTMS Level 2 so as to be compatible with the outer areas that are to be fitted with ERTMS Level 1. This contrasts with the Madrid Metro network that is being converted to CBTC using the Bombardier CITYFLO product.

Istanbul. A new tunnel under the Bosphorus strait will

provide a commuter link across the city but will also be used by long distance passenger and freight trains. Thus the route will be dual equipped for both a CBTC system and ERTMS Level 1. Exactly how these will be integrated has yet to emerge from the design stage.

Copenhagen S Bane. With the declared intention by the Danish

National Rail authorities to re-signal the entire network with ERTMS Level 2, the segregated S Bane management pondered whether to provide its network with the same system. However it was quickly realised that insufficient capacity would result and thus the entire S Bane will be converted to CBTC, even replacing fairly new signalling systems on some lines. Trains will need to be dual equipped with both systems during the roll out period and the package will include completely new operating rules to match the CBTC technology.ERTMS in operation in Belgium.



Paris RER Line E. Currently running from the eastern suburbs to a

city centre terminus, it is planned to extend the line westwards to link with existing suburban lines to create three destination points. CBTC will be used to obtain the throughput of 28 tph but retaining the French KVB system as an ATP fall-back should the CBTC encounter failure.

Not a simple decisionFinding the right system for an inter-urban cross city

railway is not straightforward. Whilst CBTC will give an enhanced throughput and build in all the operational features associated with a metro style operation, it is unlikely to be a realistic system when a line extends outwards onto a mixed traffic suburban railway. ERTMS, even with an add on ATO package, will not give the high throughput that may be required in a city centre section. To mix the two technologies creates complications for the

rolling stock engineer, especially if retro-fitting of trains is required, and the operators will need to teach drivers the features of mixed operation.

Not having an international standard for CBTC technology is a recognised weakness and there are moves being made to put this right. However, history shows that companies associated with signalling design and technology only grudgingly work together to produce systems that are capable of interoperability, let alone interchangeability. Quite where the directing mind will come from to make this happen is difficult to foresee.

It has also to be recognised that CBTC systems are complex and involve applications that go beyond just the safe movement of trains. They will, on occasions, fail and keeping a degraded service in operation must be part of the planning and design process.

Having said all of this, CBTC technology has revolutionised the way metros are operated and the systems around the world that employ it are reliable in service and impressive to use. It is a pre-requisite for Driverless or Unattended operation. Many people are now asking whether CBTC principles could be applied on main lines, perhaps as a successor system to ERTMS. That is a question too difficult to answer at the present time.

Thanks are extended to the IRSE International Technical Committee who have debated this subject at length and from where some of the information has been gleaned.

ProfessionalS&T Services

Signalling Maintenance

Provision of qualified, IRSE licensed staff to cover

signalling maintenance activities, either as a stand-alone

contractor or as supplementary labour to augment an

existing maintenance regime.

Installation Services

Provision of S&T installation teams, experienced and

competent in all aspects of signalling activities.

S&T Support for Track Renewals

Removal / refitting and testing of signalling equipment

and subsequent SMTH testing.

Installation and set up of new point operating equipment.

S&T Support for Civil Engineering

S&T support for bridge engineering work, viaducts, culverts

and other structures, including S&T Lineside Inspections.

Graeme White - Divisional Manager01324 625231 or 01942 210973

[email protected]

T:

E:

S&T Team

Keith Parry - S&T Professional Head01324 625231

[email protected]

T:

E:

John Kennedy - Senior Signalling Engineer01324 625231

[email protected]

T:

E:

W: www.nrlrail.co.uk




The SkyTrain light rapid transit system in Vancouver, Canada, comprises 68.7km (42.7 miles) of track and 47 stations over three lines. The first of these, the Expo line, was opened in 1985 for Expo 86 and was built as a fully-automated system, mostly on elevated

structures - hence the name “SkyTrain”.

Automation is achieved using the SelTrac® system from Thales (formerly Alcatel). Since the first such system was installed on the Expo line, SelTrac was also specified for the subsequent Millennium Line (13 stations opened in 2006) and the Canada Line (15 stations in 2009).

Both the Expo and the Millennium lines are operated by the British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC) on behalf of South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, most simply known as TransLink. BCRTC is based at its operations and maintenance centre in Burnaby, BC, where more than 630 dedicated staff work in the areas of administration, engineering, elevator and escalator maintenance, field operations, vehicle maintenance and wayside maintenance.

Evergreen successThe next stage of Vancouver’s metro

expansion will be the Evergreen Line - a 10.9km extension that will have six new stations and require major upgrades to two more. As part of that project, Partnerships BC, the British Columbia project management organization, has awarded a contract to Thales to install the SelTrac Communications-based Train Control (CBTC) on the new line.

“Since Signalling the Expo Line in 1985, the first CBTC driverless system in the world, we have also applied our reliable SelTrac CBTC system to both the Millennium Line

and Canada Line”, said Michael Mackenzie, vice-president and managing director, Thales Canada. “TransLink and BCRTC can pride itself on operating on one of the longest fully automated systems in the world. They are recognised world leaders in rail transit and, throughout the decades, Vancouver’s SkyTrain remains a well-respected system amongst urban rail operators globally. It continues to draw interest from operators considering implementing a driverless CBTC system”.

Thales’ CBTC system has been proven worldwide on over 55 projects to date and operates on over 1,300 km of track in major urban centres around the world carrying an estimated 3 billion passengers annually.

Docklands JubileeThales’s successful SelTrac CBTC system

is also in operation in the UK. It has been installed since 1994 on the Docklands Light

Railway (DLR), which reported its highest-ever passenger numbers during London 2012, up by more than 100 per cent on normal levels. Its busiest day saw more than half-a-million passengers use the service for the first time in its history and it maintained a success rate for on-time departures of better than 99 per cent throughout the Games - testament to the excellent delivery record of the Thales signalling system.

The Jubilee Line on the underground also operates using SelTrac technology, and it too has demonstrated excellent performance - it successfully transported millions of people during the Olympics and recorded three successive days of zero delays over the Games period, its biggest ever test to date.

With this successful pedigree, Thales UK will no doubt continue to propose its world-leading SelTrac technology for future signalling upgrade schemes in the urban rail environment.

SELTRACK GOES EVERGREEN


SelTrac® CBTC. Better decisions deliver better outcomes.

Booming urbanisation worldwide has brought growing pressure on public authorities to create sustainable mobility and develop and extend their transport infrastructures. SelTrac® by Thales is the world’s leading automated Communications-Based Train Control solution. With CBTC, Thales has been improving rail efficiency and rail flow via automated

control systems for more than 26 years. So far, we have deployed more than 53 SelTrac® CBTC systems in over 30 major cities. By placing what we call the ‘Critical Decision Chain’ at the heart of our equipment and solutions we enable decision makers to master complexity in critical scenarios and make timely decisions to deliver the best outcomes.

To learn more about our CBTC system technologies, scan the QR code or visit thalesgroup.com

Energy savings?Anticipating energy peaks and synchronising trains saves up to 18% energy on average for green transit systems

Reducing costs?Automatic train control, efficient maintenance facilities and diagnostics to reduce operation and LCC

Safe train movement?Ensuring safe train movement by monitoring maximum train speed and minimum train separation

Maximising line capacity?Reducing headway, minimising travel times and increasing availability

Ease of system migration?Vast experience at migrating from conventional to CBTC systems with minimum disruption

CBTC_English_C31622.055_297x210_Mar13_RailEngineer_v1.indd 1 22/02/2013 10:25Issue 101 - tre March 2013 PDFing.indd 21 25/02/2013 21:45


There has been much talk, in The Rail Engineer and elsewhere, about Network Rail’s plans to concentrate all signalling control in Great Britain into 14 centres. These will be world-class facilities which will accommodate the latest advances and developments

in signalling infrastructure across the entire railway network. Construction is scheduled to be completed over the next few years.

As part of this programme, the Spencer Group’s Rail division was awarded the contract in 2006 to build the first three signalling control centres - East Midlands, West Scotland and Thames Valley. Further new centres followed between 2006 and 2008 at Derby, Glasgow, Thames Valley and Cardiff - with all but the latter built by the Spencer Group.

Lessons learntDue to the future strategic importance

of control centres nationally, prior to the completion of Thames Valley and Cardiff, Network Rail undertook a strategic formal ‘lessons learnt’ exercise in 2008. This was to reassess the requirements and functionality of the control centre facilities, and also look at making reductions in carbon footprint with the utilisation of greener technologies.

Teams from Network Rail, the contractors including Spencer Rail, design consultants, route managers and signalling engineers participated in a meeting at Network Rail’s Westwood facility in Coventry.

The review identified a number of strategic improvements and significant step-changes from the first control centres. These were developed over a two year period by Network Rail’s Building Design Group before Form

A (outline) design details for the ‘second generation’ ROC (rail operating centre) were published as the future Network Rail requirements for this type of facility.

Perhaps due to its in-house expertise and understanding from having built the previous signalling control centres, Spencer Rail was awarded the contract to deliver the first of the second generation ROCs through GRIP stages 5 (detailed design) to 8 (project close) at Three Bridges in Crawley.

Improved designThe Three Bridges ROC is around 30 per cent

larger than any of the previous schemes and has the capacity to cater for the needs of both Sussex Route signalling and Thameslink, as well as the future demands of Traffic Management technology, processes and people.

While the size of the buildings was an important change, other major alterations which would prove crucial to the design included a greater focus on enhanced security and a move towards greater sustainability. The concept of design was changed significantly, with an onion peel design used to protect critical operational signalling infrastructure and to boost security capability.

Other significant detailed design changes were implemented to create greater system resilience for the universal power supply. This is vitally important due to electrical traction power control operations now being housed alongside the signalling.

This greater concentration of essential resources also led to internal and external security system enhancements to counter any threat. The building itself is a strong, structural steel frame with hollow-core concrete planks incorporating a TermoDeck heating and cooling system. The building envelope comprises a glass reinforced concrete cladding and curtain walling system enhanced for better protection and security - this was a fundamental change in the design philosophy.

While the structural integrity of the building has always been important, both the substructure and superstructure design changed dramatically to accommodate the building being much larger, the remodelled internal layout and the extra security requirements. Externally, strategically placed, high-angled earth berms enhance site security.

Power and sustainabilityThe equipment within is classified into three

categories: critical, essential and non-essential. Power supplies to these three categories of equipment were protected accordingly.

Multiple-sources of power were used to create several levels of redundant back-up. Intake power at 33kV and 11kV, and a

Three Bridges ROC EDDIE HANSON, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, SPENCER RAIL


Integrated PSU and OLE Engineering Solutions

Total Rail Infrastructure Design and Implementation

Dedicated M&E, S&T and Permenant Way Delivery Resources

Industry leading Possession Management and Handbook Control

Total rail infrastructure

www.thespencergroup.co.uk +44 (0) 113 815 0015



generator back up at 400V, supply a UPS (uninterruptable power supply) backup capable of sustaining full critical load for a significant period of time.

Sustainability, and a greater focus on this by Network Rail, also led to significant design changes utilising a plethora of complementary technologies to reduce the CO² output and energy consumption.

A geothermal ground source heat pump system comprising thirty-eight 160 metre deep boreholes was incorporated as the primary source of heating and cooling to the building. This fed a TermoDeck system within the building utilising the hollow-core concrete planks as a heat exchanger to heat and cool the building internally. This system, along with the ground source heat pump and dry air cooling, is designed to maintain an optimum temperature in all facets of the building including welfare suites, control centre spaces and, importantly, the equipment rooms. The TermoDeck cooling system does, however, have operating limits so, in high heat-gain areas, supplementary cooling systems have been incorporated by way of down flow cooling.

In operation, these technologies either draw in extra heat to raise the temperature or expel waste air into the atmosphere to reduce temperatures while maintaining ground temperatures within Environment Agency guidelines. They are all combined into an environmental control centre which allows for the continual monitoring and optimisation of the internal atmosphere. This environmental control technology is complemented by both

solar thermal panels for heat and photovoltaic panels for the generation of electricity.

Construction constraintsA significant challenge for the Spencer

Rail engineers, both at the Grip 5 and Grip 6 (construction, test and commission) stages, was the constrained site. With only one vehicle point of access, along Williams Way, the logistics of plant, materials and the workforce had to be considered with greater focus than normal to maintain the build programme.

Added to this was the fact that the ROC was within yards of a multi-million pound Thameslink Depot development, and close to a depot belonging to a national construction firm and, to the south, a children’s play area.

Cunningly, Spencer Rail made friends with their neighbours at Waterlea Adventure Playground, even donating more than £500

worth of planters complete with a colourful array of flowers to go in them. Councillor Lenny Walker, Crawley Borough Council’s cabinet member for leisure and culture, said at the time: “It’s great to see so many green-fingered young people enjoying gardening and the great outdoors. My thanks go to Spencer for the planters and flowers.”

First of many Three Bridges is the first ROC which has been

planned to be entirely future proof with an anticipated lifespan of at least 75 years. It has been designed and built by Spencer Rail with enough extra capacity to accommodate the phased installation of all the new equipment which will be needed as dozens of lines are upgraded over the next two decades.

Ultimately, these second generation ROCs will become the heartbeat of all rail operations nationally with the view to improving reliability and, importantly, efficiency. By centralising signalling and electrification for dozens of lines across various parts of the country, better data management can be brought in to get more trains carrying more passengers running more journeys.

For Spencer Rail, it has been a proud achievement and testament to its ongoing desire to design and build innovating engineering solutions.


THE COMPLETE SIGNALLING SOLUTION

Excellence in train control +44 (0) 1923 635 000 [email protected] www.signallingsolutions.com Signalling Solutions Limited, Bridgefoot House, Watling Street, Radlett, WD7 7HT

a Balfour Beatty and Alstom UK company

Signalling Solutions is a leader in the provision of train control solutions in the UK, offering a complete range of services from design to full project delivery.

Our systems are capable of meeting the demands of modern railway networks, allowing safer and faster project installation and reducing whole life costs. We give you complete visibility and control over

your network operations in real-time, increasing reliability and traffic flow. Our solutions are ERTMS ready, in successful commercial operation and delivering significant benefits to operators across Europe.

Our expertise and experience in supporting the UK’s rail network has placed us at the heart of innovation and technological development within the sector.

Brand_Ad_v3_Dandelion.indd 1 23/08/2012 09:44Issue 101 - tre March 2013 PDFing.indd 25 25/02/2013 22:21

CITYFLO in use on Madrid Metro.

Testing at Old Dalby.


London Underground is 150 years old this year. The first train on the Metropolitan Railway ran between Paddington and Farringdon on 9 January 1863.

Today, the Metropolitan line is one of the four lines that make up the sub-surface railway (SSR), the others being the Circle, District and Hammersmith City. Although they have been upgraded during the last 150 years, they are still some of the oldest parts of the Tube’s network.

Not surprisingly, with an ageing system, it is difficult to achieve reliability yet London Underground has the objective to provide not only increased reliability, but also a significant increase in capacity, faster trains and a better service for its customers. It will do this by introducing new state-of-the art trains and a signalling system that enables more frequent services.

Largest signalling contract Bombardier Transportation

was awarded the contract for SSR automatic train control (ATC) signalling upgrade for London Underground in June 2011. The contract, valued at approximately £354 million, is reportedly the largest metro re-signalling contract ever undertaken in the world.

At the heart of the new system is Bombardier’s proven CITYFLO 650 ATC system which uses communication-based train control (CBTC) technology. It is similar to

that running successfully on the Metro de Madrid Lines 1 and 6 in Spain, part of one of the busiest networks in Europe where the customer has already noted a 30 increase in passenger carrying capacity with further improvement expected. The same system is also in operation on Shenzhen Metro Line 3 in China, which was delivered in 22 months.

CITYFLO is a moving block system utilising modern radio-based wide area networks to communicate between the control centre and the train. In addition to enabling the system to be installed without interruption to service and to tight timelines, it can provide interoperability with legacy train control systems and can be adapted to accommodate country requirements.

The full scope of the London Underground contract is for the signalling renewal and provision of an ATC system for the four sub-surface lines which carry 1.3 million passengers a day. Together, the lines comprise 40 of the network and carry 25 of the total ridership.

SSS - Sub Surface Signalling


www.bombardier.com

Bombardier has pioneered the development of ERTMS Level 1, Level 2 and Regional, as demonstrated in over 20 projects worldwide. Our wayside and onboard systems have been implemented on more than 18,000 km of track and 2,500 vehicles.

Bombardier systems are easily adapted to existing equipment and can deliver increased safety, interoperability, high speed and reduced need for wayside infrastructure.

BOMBARDIER INTERFLO FOR ERTMS

© 2

013

. Bo

mb

ard

ier

Inc

. or

its

sub

sid

iari

es.

All

rig

hts

re

serv

ed

.

FROM INNOVATION TO INSTALLATION


CITYFLO cab displays (Madrid Metro).


By 2018, Bombardier will equip the 310 km of track line (40 km in tunnels), 113 stations, 191 trainsets, 49 engineering trains and six heritage trains, followed by a two-year warranty period.

New methods - one teamThe sheer scale of this

project has required London Underground to adapt its processes and requirements to the solution that Bombardier is providing. Matthew Steele, London Underground’s programme delivery manager, explained: “We’ve recognised that we need to be flexible as a customer to enable our suppliers to give us the solutions we need. This is facilitated by our ‘New Engineering Contracts’ (NEC) - a very different way of working

- and one that reciprocally incentivises collaboration with our supplier partners.

“The sub-surface railway represents 40 of London Underground’s network. We also have to deal with the age of the system and the need for reliability, which means that we want to ensure that the impact on our customers is kept to a minimum.”

The project teams from LU and Bombardier are co-located one building. Matthew Steele is convinced that this was the correct move to make. “It ensures a spirit of transparency and openness and it helps to integrate all the functions - from the operations team, who understand how the railway operates, to the testing team and through to the maintenance staff who will look after the system down the line.

“There are a lot of inter-dependent projects that all have an impact on each other. So we can’t look at re-signalling, rolling out new trains, or maintaining them as projects in isolation. We have to do all of these things together and recognise that the smallest change can impact upon the other initiatives. We can only

deliver if we are monitoring all our interfaces and working collaboratively.”

Minimising risk “Knowing that London

Underground is probably the most complex metro in the world, we ran a comprehensive 18-month selection process before embarking on this project. Bombardier offered a proven

product that could deliver the performance that we believe we need. For us it was critically important that the system could be delivered within a challenging timeframe and we gained confidence from the fact that the product is already in use (in Metro de Madrid and Shenzhen).

“Nevertheless, we face different challenges. As well

as being a much larger and older system, we have mixed operations such as a shared network with Chiltern Railways and London Overground. It is a complex layout, with junctions - interfacing with the Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. There are, however, similarities, for example, this is a brownfield site and we are reliant on night closure times to test and install the system.”

Measuring successThe project team’s objective is

to introduce the full performance of the sub-surface signalling upgrade with minimal closures. Whilst closures will be needed to remodel the key trackwork, disruption to customers will be avoided by applying the fundamental principle of proving the system performance and reliability off-site, both in the factory and at the test track at Old Dalby, before installing it on the railway.

Carrying out testing over the next 18 months at the dedicated 5km Old Dalby test track, near Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire, will ensure that the CITYFLO 650 system completely meets all of London Underground’s requirements. Long term, this will minimise disruption to customers both by reducing the need for closures as well as by proving the reliability and performance before installing on SSR.

“Our objective is to guarantee reliable service on the railway,” Matthew Steele commented. “We will know we have been successful if there is no discernible impact of the upgrade to our customers and when we complete a system that delivers reliability, performance and the customer benefits including the increase in capacity that we defined. We recognise this is no mean feat but we are embracing this challenge to delivery on time and realise the benefit for London.”

CITYFLO installation under test at Old Dalby.



Each year, Westermo Data Communications and its supply chain hold a free-to-attend one day conference on signalling and telecommunications within the rail industry. This year’s event is set to be held in London on Thursday 16 May.

Phil Mounter, sales engineer at Westermo, explains: “We have built our reputation on being well known as the remote access telecommunications company in the industry. Having consulted with our customers and our supply chain, we believe that the big themes of 2013 and into CP5 will be sustainability, safety and supply chain collaboration (BS11000).

“We have looked at the part we can play in this

and how our products can offer customers all of the above when they are working on specific signalling and telecommunications projects.”

Voice recorders and reduced powerRemote access or remote monitoring is a hot

topic, and Westermo is currently working on a number of projects to deploy remote access onto the rail network through voice recorders. These are located in signal boxes and record the telephone conversations between train drivers and signallers - very important in the event of an incident. Connecting these voice recorders together in one network allows remote access to this data from any site.

Remote access plays an increasingly important role in providing a sustainable railway by being able to collect the data and even diagnose faulty track circuits. Some faults can even be corrected remotely, resulting in significant cost and manpower savings and even improving overall safety by reducing the number of site visits.

Another way in which a sustainable railway can reduce its environmental impact is by limiting the overall power consumed by devices installed on its communications network. Westermo’s Lynx range of industrial Ethernet switches, already Network Rail approved and installed on several signalling projects, have the lowest power consumption in their class.

So this year’s Westermo free event will be focussing on sustainability, safety and supply chain collaboration. Speakers from Westermo, FirstCo, telent and Network Rail will give practical advice on these important issues. Registration is available through the website.www.westermo.co.uk/sustainability


Understanding sustainability, safety and security

See us at Railtex on Stand J34

… Phone: 01489 580585… www.westermo.co.uk … [email protected]

Compact powerful Ethernet switchBuild complete Ethernet networks with daisy chains and ring topologies. Suitable for use in extremely harsh industrial environments. Device functionality, including VLAN, Static Routing, Layer 3 switching, IGMP Snooping Firewall, SNMP V3 and VPN support all help improve bandwidth support and network security.

WeOS



Resignallingthe Victoria Line

Much has been written about the excellent way in which public transport performed during the 2012 London Olympic Games. This was due to detailed planning and to making sure that major improvement projects by both London Underground and

Network Rail were completed in advance of the competitors and spectators arriving.

The Rail Engineer has looked at several of those projects. One that it has not was the commissioning by Invensys Rail of the seventh and final asset replacement stage of the Victoria Line Upgrade (VLU) Project, marking the completion of a challenging nine year programme.

Invensys delivered the upgrade in partnership with London Underground (LU) and Bombardier Transportation, the programme seeing the replacement of all the Victoria Line’s rolling stock and signalling and ultimately providing improved headways and journey times. The upgrade programme has delivered a ‘30 trains per hour’ service,

providing passengers with faster, more reliable and more comfortable journeys, with week day peak services increasing from 28 to 30 trains per hour and off peak services from 23 to 24 trains per hour.

Overlaying the new systemA little over 13 miles long, the Victoria Line

was originally opened in four sections between 1968 and 1972. The line is predominantly formed of a deep level tube tunnel which serves 16 stations with a fleet of 43 trains (37 of which are in service at peak hours). The design and installation teams for the VLU programme therefore faced a number of significant challenges, the project representing a first for LU in that it required migration from one Automatic Train Operation (ATO) system to another, with Invensys Rail’s Distance to Go-Radio (DTG-R) trackside equipment being overlaid on to the legacy signalling system, transmitting both the new radio messages and legacy track circuit codes during the migration period for the new rolling stock fleets.

Train detection, interlocking and point detection and control continued to be delivered by the legacy signalling system, which also switched and transmitted the legacy Automatic Train Control (ATC) track circuit codes to the 1967 stock trains. Invensys delivered new ATO and Automatic Train Protection (ATP) solutions which were overlaid onto the existing infrastructure and which enabled mixed operation of the original 1967 fleet and new rolling stock. The overlay solution allowed the first of the 47 new Bombardier 09TS trains to start running on the live passenger-carrying railway three years ahead of the final project completion, minimising service disruption throughout the project.

The ATP system provides train protection for over-speed driving limit enforcement (end of authority) and protection limit enforcement (limit of movement authority), while the ATO



RAIL

BRIDGES & WALKWAYS

ROLLING STOCK METALWORK

t: 01254 773718 I e: [email protected]

SIGNAL STRUCTURES

Site installations and refurbishments are carried out by our trained

PTS team, with all design and fabrication undertaken in-house.

Our team work seven days a week on a rotational two-shift system

and provide test builds at our site in Lancashire.

Audley End Access for All bridge installation

ww

w.w

ecrail.com

Audley End bridge - Installed

DESIGN - MANUFACTURE - INSTALLATION

provides automatic driving functionality for control within driving limits, speed and distance signal stopping and auto-restarting platform stopping (to within /- 1 metre of the actual stopping mark) as well as the potential for automatic door opening.

The new 09TS fleet began to enter service in January 2010 and has already accumulated over 10.2 million kilometres of passenger operation. As part of the migration stage, the new Signalling Centre at Osbourne House also took control of the legacy interlockings and the legacy control room, with the control centre commencing continuous operations in January 2011.

Removing the legacyAn asset replacement programme was undertaken by Invensys after

the last of the 1967 stock was withdrawn. Over 15 months and seven stage commissionings, the company successfully removed the last of the legacy signalling equipment and installed new WESTLED signals, FS2550 track circuits and a full range of platform equipment. The company’s WESTRACE solution now controls the entire line which is split into 16 interlockings, linked to the signalling control system.

The final stage was delivered over a 27-hour weekend closure in July and saw the commissioning of bi-directional signalling between Seven Sisters and Northumberland Park Depot. New control centre operations were also installed, together with an upgraded version of DTG-R train data, which provides full functionality for control of the entire Victoria Line.

“Migration to the new signalling system presented many challenges, both technical and operational. Keeping the railway running whilst the signalling system was being replaced required a realistic and realisable migration plan, while recognising the constraints on access to the

railway. Throughout the project, the Victoria Line remained operational during the day. Access was generally limited to three extended nights per week, plus a number of weekend shutdowns, limiting disruption to passengers and ensuring a smooth transition from the legacy to the new system”, said Invensys Rail’s delivery director, Matt Kent.

“This has been one of the longest, most complex and most challenging projects we have undertaken, but the result is a railway which is delivering significantly improved capacity, performance and reliability for London Underground and its passengers, as well as a greatly improved service for the increasing number of people using the line.”



Temporary Signalling

When re-signalling and permanent way works take place at the same time and over successive weekends, it is often necessary to install temporary site signals.

The drawback in using temporary signals in the past has always been the difficulties encountered when things go wrong - for example the whole railway has to be closed to replace a failed lamp. Without permanent safe-access arrangements, personnel access to these structures is restricted to mechanised plant (under Overhead Line Equipment isolation conditions), and so the performance impact of any failure, however unlikely, needs to be balanced against the potential engineering savings that accrue.

However, following the introduction of LED signals and their inherent reliability compared to traditional filament lamps, signal engineers are now able to propose lower cost, temporary solutions for short term installations.

Simple solutionsSome temporary signal installations can be quite simple structures.

One typical example is a straight-post signal which was employed for several weeks on the Up line at Arkleston, near Paisley. Featuring a pre-cast concrete base, with lifting lugs and a basic straight post, the LED signal head is mounted along with the Signal Post Telephone and Signal Post Replacement Switch.

On the other hand, larger and more complicated examples, while taking longer to install (and remove), can result in significant cost savings. Engineers needed to provide a temporary signal on a four-way gantry on the Ayr line at Paisley. A temporary signal covering the left hand line (in the photograph) was attached to the gantry leg. It really was temporary - it had an operational life of only some 36 hours whilst the line remained in use. The alternative would have been to install a temporary gantry cage position, which would have added greatly to the cost of the structure.

Following the next permanent-way stage, the new line was brought into use and the final gantry cage installed. The temporary signal was removed and the completed, permanent installation commissioned.

These examples were both implemented by Invensys Rail on the Paisley Corridor Improvement project. There are many other examples where, in order to keep a line open during ongoing track realignments or signalling renewals, temporary signals are the economical answer. With further advances in LED technology and lightweight structures, there is likely to be wider use of these temporary signals in the future.

AFTER

BEFORE

PETER ALLAN,PRINCIPAL PROJECT ENGINEER, INVENSYS RAIL


Expect the expected

Find out more about what you can expect atwww.invensysrail.com or call 01249 441441

You know what to expect from Invensys Rail. UK and global capabilities. Experienced and talented employees. Innovative solutions.

The only surprise is...that there isn’t one.

Come and see us at Railtex,

stand D21

011390 expect the expected_rail engineer.indd 1 12/02/2013 15:51Issue 101 - tre March 2013 PDFing.indd 33 25/02/2013 22:22


Almost by definition, there has to be a wealth of talent within Britain’s universities, some of it hopefully studying engineering and technology. The mind-sets of the young are uncluttered by past practices and thus able to think up new ideas that would be

dismissed out of hand by those of us who are steeped in the traditional way of doing things. Can this innovative thinking be put to good use in the rail industry? Professor Roger Goodall from Loughborough University, and a recent Past Chairman of the IMechE Railway Division, gave a fascinating insight in a recent lecture to the IRSE into how this is being achieved.

The government is encouraging industry in general to be more innovative and the Department for Transport has wanted a partnership with the Research Council to look specifically at opportunities within rail. This has resulted in the Rail Research UK Association being established, a body being funded in part by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) and Network Rail, tasked with seeing whether anything can be done to increase railway capacity without the expensive options of building more trains or enhancing infrastructure.

The remit is to go a step beyond what the industry is currently doing - to think the unthinkable and to challenge the rules. Whilst capacity on plain line can be readily calculated, adding ‘fixed nodes’ such as stations, junctions, crossovers and level crossings, can quickly reduce the theoretical capacity that is available. The general guidance is to run a train service that is between 60-70 of the calculated capacity and is set down in a

Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI) but can this be improved? Any increase will involve a trade off between reliability, delay and capacity.

Five grants were awarded in 2011 to different Universities to investigate five separate radical approaches. Some of this work is completed and some is ongoing. Each one is described here.

OCCASIONThis project has looked at overcoming

capacity constraints by optimisation of train movements through ‘nodes’ (hence the acronym!) and has been studied by the University of Southampton. ‘Pinch points’ at Pirbright Junction and Southampton Airport Parkway were initially studied but neither of these presented a significant challenge so the investigation moved to the section of East Coast main line (ECML) between Huntingdon and Grantham, concentrating on the important junction at Peterborough and particularly the cross country services on the Lincoln - Peterborough - Ely corridor.

Universitiesand Railway TechnologyCLIVE KESSELL



A ‘job shop’ model (each train being a job) was produced searching for relationships between train types and characteristics, track sections, train movements and arrival/departure times, but without any change to the operating rules or track layout. The model potentially showed that an additional 14 services could be operated on the cross country route but that only a small increase would be possible on the ECML. The latter is limited by the number of tracks available between Peterborough and Huntingdon.

The model is capable of considering the impact of train service perturbations at Grantham and Huntingdon and the effect these would have on the Peterborough complex. It also showed that with higher speed points and some changes to the switch crossing layout, many more capacity improvements could be obtained.

SAFECAPEver mindful that safety must be maintained in any capacity increase

initiative, Newcastle and Swansea Universities, assisted by Invensys Rail and a Japanese Institute, have been assigned a project to produce a ‘push button’ check which would verify whether or not changes to control tables or signalling designs are safe. The model is based around a standard double junction and already suggests that, by changing the control table, an additional train every six minutes can be accommodated without compromising safety. This can be further improved once a full ATP system is installed such that rules can be adjusted accordingly.

This is an on-going piece of work and will use Carlisle, Leamington Spa and the Thameslink route as trial sites.

Dynamic Responsive Signal ControlsClosely aligned to the driver advisory systems that are being

introduced, this project is a study by University College London to harness real time data and communications obtained from the operational railway to try and get trains into the right place at the right time and at the right speed so as to avoid conflicting movements and any associated acceleration or braking of trains. The key output will be the optimised ‘trajectory’ of trains based upon trains providing position, speed and planned trajectory (routing) information and control centres providing state of the network, planned signal changes and projection of trajectory information.

From these two elements, optimum train paths can be calculated in a real time situation to promote capacity increase, whilst at the same time taking into account resilience and timetable recovery. It is recognised that automatic train operation (ATO) would be needed in order to yield the maximum benefits but, even with manual driving, the results show that significant gains can be achieved.

Edgware Road on the London Underground, with its flat junction and four platforms, is the case study to see whether changes to the operational margins can improve both performance and capacity.

Fault Tolerant Rules for Train ControlThis project really does test the boundaries of ‘normal’ train control

operation and is being carried out by the University of Salford with assistance from Leeds University. The basic thinking comes from the preconception that road users (and to a certain extent pilots of aircraft) are constantly anticipating the situation ahead and making adjustments accordingly. The railways have traditionally been cautious in how trains are controlled when approaching a junction or station and methods of reducing speed using approach control signal aspects are the norm. As a train nears a junction, the controlling signal will be held at red until firstly, the route is proven clear and secondly, the train speed is appropriate for the route to be taken.



This project examines a scenario that allows a train to approach the junction or station at a much higher speed on the basis that the intended route will be cleared successfully in the vast majority of instances. If on a rare occasion the route does not clear, then an ‘escape path’ must be available for the train to take if the speed is such that the controlling signal would be passed at red. Two examples would be: » a train is approaching a terminal station

and is booked into a specific platform. If the platform remains occupied and an alternative, non conflicting platform was available, then the train would be routed into that;

» a train is nearing a junction and is due to take a diverging route across an opposite direction track in the process. If safe passage across the junction does not materialise, then the train would be routed straight on if unable to stop at the controlling signal.

Some of this will make traditional signal engineers and operators squirm but is it so unreasonable? Providing the safety of the signalling system is not compromised and the occurrence of such incidents can be proven as extremely rare, then valuable time can be saved and capacity increased. The ongoing problem of getting the train back onto its required route and the disturbance to other train services in the process will need to be weighed up.

REPOINT - Redundantly Engineered Points

This project, being championed by Loughborough University, looks at the reliability of current switch and crossing

technology and suggests how point performance can be improved, thus improving utilisation and providing increased capacity. Currently, points are considered to be unsafe unless proved in a certain position. When point correspondence cannot be assured, then restrictive measures have to be put in place that will adversely impact on the train service. To overcome this situation, switches can be designed with more redundancy, invariably adding additional components and causing extra cost. Can there be a different approach to eliminate failures at these critical nodes?

A design which uses ‘stub switches’ to give multiple routes from a single switch end is under development. Because of pending patents, details are scant at this stage. There should be many advantages but equally there will be drawbacks - how to lock rails in position and a potentially large rail gap. The university believes it has solutions to these problems and the outcome would be reduced switching times and elimination of the ‘out of correspondence’ state. The goal is to make points as reliable as plain line.

Two case study locations, HS2 and Waterloo Station throat, will be progressed so as to compare the impact on two very different rail

scenarios. This is revolutionary in concept but so was the aircraft ‘fly by wire’ system when originally devised and considered unthinkable by the air industry authorities at the time. Nowadays it is very much a norm and no modern aircraft would use anything else. Such is the acceptance of progress.

A slow process?All five projects started as ideas for

improving capacity but the work to date has shown that other benefits will result, some of which are more significant than easing the capacity constraints.

Getting acceptance is likely to be a slow process and the Universities are under no illusion that there will be considerable but hopefully measured opposition. History shows that the mainstream railway engineering departments were at best always suspicious of ideas that BR Research sought to impose on them and at worst openly hostile. There were successful examples that shone through, such as the development of SSI resulting in excellent cooperation between research, engineering and industry, but even that had a hard core of die-hard signalling engineers who opposed it on the grounds that computers were inherently unsafe.

The structure of the UK rail industry has moved on and it is re-assuring that participation from signalling companies is happening in some of the current projects. The onerous process of achieving safety approval will have to be gone through and it can be foreseen that the safety fraternity will be pedantic to the extreme for some of these ideas. A reining in of their freedom and responsibilities might have to be called for.

So - exciting stuff and something that will be watched with interest. The real benefit could well be the much closer co-operation between universities and the real world of practical engineering and operations.


ee us atailte o

ta H


the rail engineer • March 201338 the rail engineer • March 201338

Railways, and signalling in particular, are generally not well regarded for being innovative. Talented job applicants with a high-tech background, such as software engineering, are predictably

surprised when told that mechanical computers (i.e. interlockings) are still widespread in the railway system. Even if not a mainstream technology, relay-based interlockings are still regarded by some as “modern”, and in certain respects are even considered to be superior to ones based on electronics.

To an outside observer who is familiar with the fascinating potential of modern technology, the pace of innovation in railways might well be perceived to lag behind other industries just a bit too much. This observation applies not only to signalling but also to the speed of change in railway telecommunications when compared with commercial and consumer networks.

Mechanical computersWhen railways were first

introduced, they represented an industry where cutting edge innovation occurred. For instance, when the first mechanical interlocking was installed in 1843 at Bricklayers’ Arms Junction in south London, it was in fact a state-of-the art logic computer, occurring at a time when Charles Babbage was working on his mechanical

computing machines. The mechanical technology for

conquering arithmetic problems is long gone, yet mechanical interlockings are still here.

So it is reasonable to ask the seemingly simple question - why is that? Why are mechanical interlockings still being renovated? If, in fact, there is a business case for such an activity (compared with using lean IT technology with its associated potential for efficiency improvement in operating the overall system), then should we not ask if something has gone wrong with the innovation process in railways, and if so what and why?

Innovation or invention?To avoid confusion about what is

meant precisely by ‘innovation’ for the purpose of this article we should distinguish between ‘innovation’, ‘invention’, and ‘technological

development/improvement’. For the remainder of this article, the following definition and distinction is adopted:

“Innovation is the development of different or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Latin - innovare: to change) rather than doing the same thing better.”

No one would claim that there is a general absence of innovation (or inventions or technological improvement for that matter) in railways. The European Train Control System (ETCS), Positive Train Control and Speed Advisory Systems for instance, can clearly be considered as being innovations, based on various inventions and making use of general technological development.

To illustrate the differing ways in which innovation is perceived, some people consider that relay-based

Why is innovation so difficult in railways?


the rail engineer • March 2013 39the rail engineer • March 2013 39

Passionate about our products...and then some

www.morrismachinery.co.uk

You know us as ArcGen Hilta. For the brands you know and trust.

We’ve changed our name to Morris Site Machinery to power us forward as a world classbusiness. A business with a dynamic engineering heritage. Bringing the world’s best powerequipment to you.

Call: 0845 409 0272 Email: [email protected]

and electronic interlockings are just “doing the same thing better” than mechanical ones. Others point out that the range of safety functions implemented in modern software-based interlockings, for example relating to overlap and flank protection, is much more advanced not to mention the potential for improved efficiency by remote control and automation that they offer. They would therefore claim that these advances are ‘innovative’ according to the definition given above.

A question of scaleThere is one factor above all others that governs the

speed of introduction of innovation on rail systems, namely the ‘scale’ on which the innovation has to be applied in order to be worthwhile. Thus, for instance, Disneyland (pictured right) had moving block in the 1970s and some metro systems have driverless trains. But these are localised applications.

These advances have occurred not because the engineers in those areas are any better or more innovative than signal engineers working on large railway networks. On the contrary, one could argue that maintaining a large quantity of heterogeneous technology across a large and distributed infrastructure network with such a high level of safety and reliability is an art mastered by no other engineering discipline to the same extent. The longevity of mechanical interlockings could be claimed as proof of the signal engineer’s far-sighted design, rather than being a criticism.

It is however apparent that the scale (size) of a railway network, and the large number of people/bodies that need to be aligned in order to introduce any change,

seem to pose more challenges to the innovation process than in other contexts where localised innovation is possible. A further difficulty with innovation may be that railways are a mature industry, so that innovations do not easily offer returns on the investment made.


the rail engineer • March 201340 the rail engineer • March 201340

In addition, there appears to be a number of more subtle reasons for the failure of innovative ideas in our engineering domain, including:1. The new idea does not fit with the

existing (often aged) infrastructure2. The new idea does not fit with

the culture of the corresponding railway/country

3. The new idea does not fit with existing regulations and operational proce dures

4. The idea does not meet a real need, in the opinion of railway experts

5. The originators of the idea are not trustworthy and/or do not have the right background, in the opinion of railway experts

6. The originators of the idea (or the organisation they work for) are not considered to be likely to be around for long enough to support the innovation through its whole life cycle, right through to obsolescence (50 years or more)

7. In the opinion of railway managers,

there might be no business case for the idea

8. There might be a business case on the global level, but local application within a fragmented industry prevents the potential benefits from being realised

9. The market potential is seen too small for investment by railway suppliers, because the application circumstances differ too much from country to country

10. The idea is innovative at a component level, but there are no standardised non-proprietary interfaces to enable replacement of the old version with the new one, without renovating the systems of several other suppliers at the same time

11. Safety approvals appear too difficult to obtain, or there are other liability issues that cannot be overcome

12. No sensible roadmap can be constructed upgrading the entire network.

Having established this list of plausible reasons for the failure of new ideas to reach the implementation phase, the fact that innovation appears to lag behind in the railway industry seems less surprising.

However at the strategic level, it should be clear to all stakeholders that any system that consistently lags behind in its application of technology will lose its competitiveness sooner or later and hence either be removed from the surface of the Earth or be banished to the museums at best!

Given the current cost base of the rail industry, one main goal of innovation must be to lower the whole life cycle cost of systems and thereby make change more attractive.

No better elsewhereAs stated earlier, it isn’t suggested

that engineers in other comparable industry sectors are better than those in our own. On the contrary, other systems that comprise a large collection of existing infrastructure, such as air traffic control, seem to have similar struggles. For instance, the introduction of new generations of transponders into aircraft fleets takes some 40 years. In comparison, the 20 or so years that it took for ETCS to move from concept to its first reasonably efficient introduction in a project (the L tschberg Base Tunnel in Switzerland) seems surprisingly fast.

Cleary, no one can imagine a quick technological, “i-phone-like” revolution in railways. On the other hand, it is essential that evolutionary innovation should and must be possible. True innovation needs a clear vision as to how we want to operate our railways and rail transit systems in the future, and needs pioneers/champions committed to take on the challenge of delivering that vision fast enough so that the investments pay off.

Looking again at the ‘12 reasons’ stated above, it should be obvious that we need to distinguish between ‘valid reasons’ that hinder innovation - intrinsic and unavoidable in the system “railway” - and ‘other reasons’ which would cease to obstruct innovation if the right structural changes were


the rail engineer • March 2013 41the rail engineer • March 2013 41

www.moore-concrete.com

Bridge Deck Construction

Station PlatformsViaduct SlabsBespoke Units

STRUCTURAL PRECASTFOR RAILWAYS

MOORE CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTDCaherty House, 41 Woodside Rd,

Ballymena BT42 4QH N.I. T. 028 2565 2566F. 028 2565 8480 E. [email protected]

SLOPE-LOCA straight-forward dry lay block that provides a durable hard facing to reinforced soil slopes and embankments. Offers a characteristic sloped face finish which in certain situations is more preferable to the traditional vertical face. (designed to BS 8006 and HA 68/94).

• Available in a range of colours.

www.andertonconcrete.co.uk [email protected]

M O D U L A R S Y S T E M S R E D E F I N E D

SALES ENQUIRIES Retaining Wall Systems T: 01606 535300 Anderton Concrete Products, Units 1 & 2, Cosgrove Business Park,

Soot Hill, Anderton Northwich, Cheshire CW9 6AA.

Our perfectslant onEarthworks...ANDERTON RAIL PRODUCTS

made at the strategic level. For example, considerable progress with the standardisation of interfaces in road traffic control systems (see reason 10 above) - another strong competitor of the railway - seems to have been made already. If, as a consequence of such advances, this reason was no longer to apply in the rail sector, it might also remove other obstacles (such as reasons 1, 6, 8, 11).

Based on this example it seems worthwhile establishing a more comprehensive list of reasons for the relative scarcity of innovation in the rail industry and performing a cause-consequence analysis in order to understand the underlying mechanisms better. However, that would be part of the next step - answering the question “How do we make railways more innovative?” - which lies beyond the scope of this article.

Some people might argue that this in nothing new and that there are other underlying obstacles to innovation. For instance, during the development of ETCS, the standardisation of interfaces on the vehicle had been proposed but was declined by the industry, suggesting that the difficulties with innovation may also

be attributed in part to conflicts of interests. This may be true, but nevertheless a fundamental review of the mechanisms of innovation in our industry still seems to be a crucial step for long-term success.

Clearly, no single stakeholder in the rail industry would be able to remove a sufficient number of hindrances to innovation. Therefore it would seem necessary for governmental agencies, railway companies, suppliers and research bodies to collaborate and to establish roadmaps for removing obstacles for innovation in the railways, while taking into account the particular interests of each group.

Edited on behalf of the International Technical Committee of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) by Dr Markus Montigel, CEO of Systransis AG, Switzerland, and published with the permission of the Editor of IRSE NEWS and the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers.

True innovation needs a clear vision as to how we want to operate our railways and rail transit systems in the future



Signal Sighting Forms (SSFs) have long been regarded as a pain to produce by their creators and invariably take an age to get signed off by SSC (signal sighting committee) members. With this in mind, and with the growing acceptance of Desktop Signal Sighting and the

development of other design tools such as Intelligent Scheme Plan, Gioconda has responded to the many comments from SSC chairmen and design engineers by adding automated functionality to their Windows G-RASTx software in order to create and manage these forms.

Once development started on G-RASTx, Gioconda soon realised that this had to be a total process and not just simply a click of a button. The main issue being: “Where does the information come from?”

Data inputTo answer this, the developers first needed

to understand what information was required. At present there are various types of forms

used by Network Rail and design offices which are commonly in MS Word or Excel formats. The SSFiT form (Excel) produced by Network Rail claims to be the standard with the contents and inbuilt calculations being mandatory (not the form itself). The problem with this is that many SSC chairmen and form producers have never been totally happy with the Excel form and therefore many in-house alternatives have appeared.

The various inputs to the forms cover not only specific information for the signal or sign but also repetitive project or route related data. This is one area where Gioconda looked to automate the process. G-RASTx, including automatic SSF tools, was developed over approximately 18 months. The design team was in constant contact with various SSC chairmen, members and design engineers to ensure it ticks all the boxes. As a result, the East Kent Phase 2 project agreed to trial the new SSF process.

Trials in KentTo start with, the project provided the signal

and sign ID list required for sighting. Costs and timescales were agreed. Then a master datasheet was created in Excel which the project populated as much as possible from existing spreadsheets and scheme plans. First indications were that this was a much more efficient process than dealing with a variety of individual forms, it is also easier to check.

Next, Gioconda’s SSC chairman performed a take-off against other information including a scheme sketch or plan, video survey and aerial data. This populated approximately 90 of the master datasheet. In the future it’s expected

that programs such as ISP (Intelligent Scheme Plan) will provide more of this data, thus totally automating this stage.

Once the datasheet was as complete as possible, Gioconda ran this through the internal form generation process. A function of the new G-RASTx software is to batch create and populate forms from the master datasheet. The result was that approximately 50 of an SSF was populated automatically and a further 20 was self-calculated. Some sections still required the human touch, notably: » Confirmation of MRT (Minimum Reading

Time) requirements

SIMON GARDINERMANAGING DIRECTOR, GIOCONDA

Signal Sighting Formstaking the pain out of creation



» Signal diagram - although basic items were automatically added » Recording Obscuration diagrams » Recording and adding photographs.

However the efficiency of these pages was greatly improved by intuitively adding and editing additional items to the diagrams through context sensitive menus, integrating the Obscuration Diagram with the video/model to self calculate and self draw, prompting on all sections where items need confirmation by the chairman or committee, and using screenshots from the inbuilt high-definition video models to provide the photos.

Good impressionsThose involved with the trial all agreed that having the form linked to

the Desktop Signal Sighting software made it a very quick process to create, find, discuss and evaluate a signal at any stage.

Chris Durrant, a former SSC chairman with British Rail and Westinghouse, was particularly impressed. “I’ve been working with Gioconda for a while now, producing draft signal sighting forms from their video footage. I ‘sight’ new signals using their 3D imaging on the cab ride films in conjunction with the relative signalling scheme plans and signal sighting forms, then handing the completed documents to the signal sighting committee and chairman for their perusal. A great deal of the ‘prep’ work can be carried out this way, saving hugely on man hours for ‘on track’ time, and travelling. The G-RASTx is a quality process, meeting the need for increased efficiency, improving safety and programme deadlines.”

Whilst using the G-RASTx tools, either for planning or during an SSC meeting, Gioconda have enabled a ‘BIG Brother’ logging function to record all items viewed, updated, commented on etc. This was originally added

to aid debugging but has been developed to act as a diary of all actions and can be added to by the user to record SSC comments. The output of this log can be sent to the committee or other parties as a record of the process or meeting.

By adopting the full G-RASTx process, the East Kent project started their SSC meetings with a full set of SSFs already reviewed by the chairman and ready for committee approval. As proof of its success, it has been reported that the East Kent SSC meeting programme was completed in half the scheduled time, significantly due to the use of the Gioconda G-RASTx process and Auto SSFs.

A video presentation of the Gioconda SSF Creation can be viewed at: www.gioconda.co.uk Downloads Samples Video PresentationsSignal Sighting Forms



Constructed in 1852, the Loughor viaduct is a 220 metre long, eighteen span railway structure, constructed mainly of timber, which carries a single track railway line over the Loughor Estuary between Swansea and Llanelli in South Wales. Originally one of Brunel’s

once numerous timber viaducts, the superstructure has since been entirely replaced and it has received substantial re-designs and strengthening works in subsequent years, last being refurbished in the mid 1980s.

Now, detailed site investigations and conditional surveys have determined that the viaduct has reached the end of its lifespan. Network Rail and Carillion are replacing the complete structure, including the existing piers within the current track alignment, with a new viaduct capable of supporting two tracks as part of the larger, £50 million Gowerton Re-doubling Scheme. The work is jointly funded by the Welsh Government and Network Rail.

Design CriteriaOne of the primary considerations for Tony

Gee and Partners in designing the replacement for Loughor Viaduct has been the construction methodology and how the new viaduct can be constructed within the limited 250 hour blockade provided by Network Rail in March 2013. As there is only a limited period of rail disruption available, the vast majority of the construction had to be carried out in advance, allowing the switch over from the existing to the new viaduct during the shut down period.

This resulted in the new bridge being designed to be constructed in sections and launched longitudinally from the west bank alongside the existing viaduct and slid transversely into position during the blockade in March.

The existing viaduct is a Grade 2 listed structure, so listed building consent to demolish it was required before work could commence. Network Rail and Carillion planned to retain as much of the existing structure as possible and the east and west abutments have been incorporated into the new design to retain some of the heritage of the original viaduct.

Although the viaduct was originally double track, it was single tracked in 1986 by British Rail due to structural concerns. In addition, a speed restriction was imposed for both freight and passenger trains. Such capacity constraints were having a negative impact on the immediate and wider economy of the region as the bottleneck was causing unacceptable delays. The new viaduct at Loughor will therefore not only be beneficial to the local community but will contribute greatly to the economic regeneration of the region and Wales as a whole.

CHARLIE BUCKINGHAM, SITE AGENT, CARILLION RAIL



LOUGHOR VIADUCTEnvironmental constraints

With Loughor being a designated conservation area, ecological impact assessments were carried out in the form of desk studies, surveys and consultations with stakeholders such as the Carmarthenshire County Council and the City and County of Swansea planning and environmental departments. The existing viaduct is situated within or adjacent to several sites of European importance for nature conservation. These include the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which was designated in 2004 for the presence of important habitats, SSSI (sites of special scientific interest) and Ramsar wetlands.

Consequently, prior to commencement of the project, flood defence licences and a marine consent had to be obtained. Several months of intense consultation were undertaken with the Environment Agency for Wales, the Marine Consents Unit, the Countryside Council for Wales and the environmental departments of local councils during which the sensitivity issues of the area concerned were addressed.

The surrounding area was also designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) as it is an important wildfowl overwintering site, regularly supporting over 20,000 birds. As a result, mitigation measures were taken to

minimise disruption by carrying out works such as piling for the foundations of the new structure outside the winter period between November and February. This reduced the potential for any significant impact on bird migration.

As part of the agreement between Network Rail, Cadw (the Welsh Government’s historic environment service) and local authority planning and environmental departments, some of the existing timber trestles will be retained. Four will stay in their original place as part of the new structure, while several others will be re-erected close by as an acknowledgment of the heritage of the viaduct.

REPLACEMENT



Piles and beamsThe design of the new bridge

is for a steel and concrete deck supported on new piers 36 metres apart - three times the span distance of the old structure. Twelve 1200mm diameter permanent steel cased piles will form the foundations for the new structure while six temporary piles will facilitate the launch of the new bridge on the north side of the existing viaduct. In order to minimise disruption in the estuary, Carillion employed a method of installing the piles using cranes and piling rigs situated on jack-up barges which were towed into position by four tugs.

Despite adverse weather conditions throughout the operation, and having to deal with one of the highest tidal ranges in the UK with river flows reaching up to eight knots on high tides, this phase of the works was successfully completed in July 2012.

Constructing the crosshead beams in situ working below the existing structure would have been difficult. It was therefore decided to pre-cast the concrete side panels and lift them into position using a 350 tonne crane working off the jack-up barge. Once in position, the main beam reinforcement was fixed and concreting completed to each crosshead.

On completion of the permanent crosshead beams, temporary steel crossheads and slide rails were constructed to facilitate the launching of the new steel deck sections.

Steel deck - and concreteThe bridge deck also had to

be manufactured and placed in position without interfering with either the live railway or the local wildlife. Specialist manufacturer Mabey Bridge held a series of planning meetings with designers Tony Gee and Partners and main contractor Carillion to establish the suitability of steelwork to launch and slide. Design discussions at these initial meetings covered the number of launches, nose and tail design, splice design and positioning. The main design consideration was that the steelwork had to be detailed to allow it to be launched and then slid sideways into position.

Following agreement on design, Mabey Bridge began a three month programme of fabrication of the 1200 tonnes of structural steelwork and walkways, with a total length of 236 metres, at its modern manufacturing facility in Chepstow, South Wales.

As well as fabrication, Mabey Bridge was contracted to oversee site assembly, including temporary pier cross beams, launch of the structure in four phases and slide.

The finished steelwork was transported to site by road in girder sections each 24 metres long. These were assembled in a laydown area on the west side of the estuary. After the assembly of each of the four phases, the structure was launched over the river onto the temporary piers. Following completion of the launches, in December 2012, the steelwork was jacked down onto its permanent bearings.

Once reinforcement was in place, the concrete deck slab was cast in bays to a designed pour sequence using a mobile concrete boom pump and rigid delivery located on the west and east banks of the estuary. Once cured, the new deck was waterproofed using an approved membrane system.

The track goes onRamps at each end of the

viaduct were constructed to allow vehicular access. Track ballast was delivered by road and placed on the new deck using rubber-tyred excavators. G44 sleepers and rail is also coming in by road before being placed into position.

Once completed, track protection matting will be placed for the full length of the deck in preparation for access for the demolition of the existing viaduct.

The blockadeThe existing bridge will be

completely closed for 250 hours between 24 March and 3 April 2013. During this time the existing bridge will be removed and the new structure slid into position on the same track alignment.

Demolition will start with the removal of the existing ballast, rail and deck timbers which will be loaded by excavator and transported from the bridge. The

remainder of the bridge, which includes the steel girders and trestles, will be demolished using 65-tonne excavators equipped with mechanically operated shears. These will cut the structural members into short sections for ease of handling and transportation.

Whilst demolition of the existing bridge is going on, abutment works will be carried out on both the east and west ends of the viaduct. New reinforced concrete abutment base slabs will be cast and pre-cast retaining wall units placed to accommodate the new structure.

When the old structure has been completely removed, the new deck can be slid into place from its resting place on top of the temporary piers. Trial slides will be carried out during possessions in advance of the main blockade to test the slide system, which will consist of semi-continuous pulling rams mounted on brackets attached to the deck and the end of the slide tracks. The hydraulic power packs will be coupled up to a central control. This system allows for differential pressure to be applied to the pulling arms for directional control of the new bridge whilst moving into position. Once in place the new deck will be locked into its final position.

And there it shall remain. Will it carry trains over the River Loughor for 160 years like its predecessor? Only time will tell.


STUART RACKLEY



on the GCR Vehicle testing

This article is not a historical reminiscence, although the writer is old enough to remember the Great Central Railway (GCR) running passenger trains from Loughborough to London Marylebone in the early 1960s with a journey time of 2 hours. Not bad for steam engine

hauled trains having several stops en route.

Readers of this magazine will almost certainly know a great deal about the GCR. Some may have lived through its run-down and closure which began in 1960 with the withdrawal of the Manchester - London expresses and ended with the last remaining Nottingham - Rugby section closing in 1969.

The closure was much lamented by railway enthusiasts for many reasons, partly because it was the only UK mainline railway built to an expanded loading gauge capable of accommodating larger continental trains in anticipation of a future Channel Tunnel. This was the dream of GCR’s then chairman and driving force, Sir Edward Watkin, who envisaged a new railway line that could be expanded and linked to the continent via a tunnel. Sadly, the closure of the GCR put paid to that, and with 20-20 hindsight we now realise what a dreadful mistake it was. There may even have been a case for part of the old GCR to take the proposed HS2 from London to near Birmingham.

Following the closure of the Nottingham - Rugby section, a group of enthusiasts got together with the aim of keeping at least part of the line open as a heritage railway. Fund raising was a major problem in the early 1970s and this was only resolved when the local Charnwood Borough Council came to the rescue by purchasing the trackbed and associated lands from Loughborough to Belgrave and Birstall (now Leicester North).

During the last four decades, the expertise and dedication of both volunteers and some highly experienced and qualified staff have transformed what was a struggling little concern into one of the UK’s leading heritage railways. The collection of restored stations, signal boxes, carriages, wagons and steam and diesel locomotives are also a tribute to the hard work of those involved.

From 25 to 60 mphHer Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI

- now the Office of Rail Regulation or ORR) did not normally permit a heritage or minor railway to operate passenger trains above a speed limit of 25mph as laid down in the Light Railways Act 1896. This speed limit initially prevailed on the GCR. However in 2001, senior officers at GCR realised that there was a business need to utilise their infrastructure to provide a facility for established and potential operators which wanted to carry out testing of railway vehicles and associated components without interference on days when heritage trains were not running.

An application was made to HMRI for a derogation to run trains at up to 60mph to enable such testing to be undertaken. It was laid down by HMRI that, to permit such running, there should be no public access to the railway, a full track survey would have to be undertaken and appropriate remedial work carried out, GCR should appoint a competent Permanent Way Engineer and a full risk assessment should be drawn up by GCR staff and approved by HMRI.

All these requirements were met and derogation was granted in 2002 which allowed testing at 60mph in perpetuity.

The upgrade from 60 to 75mph runningFor many years, brake tests on freight

wagons were carried out on the national network, latterly between Crewe and Winsford. Up until 1993, this testing was carried out free of charge to the operator. However, with the run up to privatisation and with track access charges/traction hire/traincrew/test staff, the cost of a test slot escalated sharply to several thousands of pounds.

Following the derogation for 60mph running, the GCR became the preferred site for brake testing by BR Research. The officers of the



company quickly realised there was a further business case for upgrading the test line up to 75mph so that new freight wagons could be tested away from the national network at much lower cost and with a more flexible programme.

HMRI (ORR) laid down conditions before GCR were allowed to run test trains at 75mph. Primarily, ORR had to be satisfied that the permanent way was in a fit condition to accept trains with axle loads up to 25 tons at this speed. To this end, all lines along the GCR route were crack detected. This resulted in some repair and remedial work, after which the track was re-tested to ensure that it was in A1 condition. Interestingly, a high-speed rail crack detection vehicle was flown in especially from the USA to carry out this work and was flown back as soon as it was completed.

Many of the conditions laid down for 60mph running were reviewed for the higher speed derogation and a further full risk assessment was also carried out by GCR staff which was approved by ORR. To accredit their drivers to work at 75mph, GCR selected existing qualified 60mph drivers and ran accreditation sessions with them using a volunteer, who is also a Pendolino driver, and was passed to work trains at speeds up to 125mph.

In order to ensure the safety of the public and those carrying out testing duties, all work is carried out under total possession of the line and nobody is allowed at trackside within the possession limits except for essential testing staff. Along the length of the test track, there are no farm crossings, accommodation or footpath crossings. GCR observe high standards of Health and Safety in what can otherwise be at times a hazardous environment.

The first testing at 75mph took place in 2008 involving brake and slip tests on a WH Davis Super Low 45 wagon. Many tests have been carried out since and, although GCR has to apply for a letter of no objection from ORR each time 75mph testing is carried out, to date there have been no problems.

HMRI (ORR) laid down conditions before GCR were allowed to run test trains at 75mph. Primarily, ORR had to be satisfied that the permanent way was in a fit condition



Advantages of the GCROne of the major problems faced by owners

of any form of rolling stock is the ability to have it tested in the UK. Using Network Rail infrastructure is expensive, takes a long time to organise and usually has to be carried out at the most unsocial of times often in the hours of darkness and in some cases, geographically remote from the point of origin of the vehicles to be tested.

As a private railway, the GCR can offer testing facilities at any reasonable time usually within a few days of the first contact. It is located in the East Midlands just a few minutes from Junction 23 of the MI. The railway is eight miles long with five and a half miles of double track. It has gentle curves and shallow gradients (maximum of 1 in 176) and axle loading is the maximum permitted in the UK at 25 tonnes. Access is by road only at present usually at

uorn, three miles south of Loughborough, via a large yard where there is ample room to set up a project base. There are, however, well advanced plans to develop rail access to the national network at Loughborough on the Midland Main Line. The GCR has four stations, a sixty foot turntable, maintenance sheds and one of the finest mechanical signalling schemes in the heritage arena.

Having gained approval to test at 75 mph, GCR has accumulated an impressive list of clients including Network Rail, Balfour Beatty, Amey, Serco, Brush Traction and various overseas organisations. Testing has included mileage accumulation (1000 km in 2 days), braking tests including slip tests at 75mph and noise acceptance trials. The latter was particularly useful to WH Davis back in 2008 when their new Super Low 45 wagon became subject to the requirements of the full EU Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI).

Noise testingWithin the environmental section of the

TSI is a requirement for any new vehicle to pass certain parameters in regard to noise generation. At the time, there was no private test track in the UK able to carry out these tests, so Network Rail and GCR jointly set up

a noise testing facility. Had this not happened the WH Davis wagon would have had to be transported, at considerable cost, to either Switzerland or Germany or Poland or the Czech Republic for testing which would have resulted in enormous delays in the approval process.

Noise testing is carried out on a specially prepared stretch of continuously welded rail approximately one quarter of a mile long. Noise detection equipment provided by Network Rail stands in a ‘free field’ site, i.e. a location out in the country with minimum external noise sources. As both sides of the vehicle have to be tested, it is turned around on the 60ft turntable that was gifted to GCR by the National Railway Museum and which is located at uorn.

Brake and slip testing has been carried out in conjunction with disc brake manufacturers so that essential coefficient of friction characteristics can be collated for various compounds used in disc pad manufacture. Tests involving the intentional modification of the wheel/rail interface have been undertaken, examining the effect of different railhead conditions and quantifying measures that can be taken to combat lack of adhesion.

New (old) locomotivesOne particularly interesting piece of testing,

especially to steam enthusiasts, involved the Peppercorn A1 Pacific steam locomotive 60163 Tornado. Trials required assessment of wheel impact and loads on the infrastructure, both for the identification of wheelset defects and acceptability of new locos in terms of vertical and horizontal forces. These trials were carried out whilst Tornado was at the GCR for acceptance and running in tests.

GCR have an ongoing training partnership with Vital Rail and others, providing a facility where permanent way trainees can learn their craft ‘hands-on’. Apprentices can get ballast on their boots and receive lessons in track maintenance, inspection or design. Washing and messing facilities are available on site.

GCR has also helped organisations that have required their staff to have realistic driving and operating experience. The four stations provide

opportunity to learn braking and control of both light engine and braked trains so as to achieve the correct stopping points. For theory work, classroom facilities are provided and the inner man is catered for by on-site cafes and restaurants providing everything from coffee and biscuits to full meals. Conference rooms are also available for larger or specialist groups.

What does the future hold?At the time of writing, the other two test

tracks in the UK are also fairly busy. Network Rail’s own site at High Marnham has a lower speed limit than the GCR and is also used for testing on-track machinery, while the nearby track at Old Dalby (just a few miles from Loughborough), where the Virgin Pendolinos were commissioned, is now operated by London Underground testing both new trains and a new signalling system. With the excellent facilities that GCR can offer other customers for both vehicles to be tested and project support staff, their future looks bright.

(I am greatly indebted to Bill Devitt, Production and Special Projects Manager at the GCR for his assistance in preparing this article)



It is natural that, when one looks at projects and product innovation on the railways, one tends to think of the big ones. Huge projects with multi-million pound budgets, innovations which make large differences to the way people work, or travel, or which save vast amounts of

money.

However, like any business, engineering normally progresses in small steps. It also survives on the simple things. Even the largest and most intricate machine runs on small components, many of them quite mundane. They aren’t exotic, but without them the railways would grind to a halt.

Keeping it in stockThat’s where stockists and distributors come

in. It is their investment in stock which allows parts to be delivered quickly to depots and work sites which keeps the railways running.

One good example of this is Lockwell Electrical Distributors. With branches all over England and Wales, from Frome to Gateshead, and with over £4 million of stock held around the country, the company is well placed to help out when needed.

Lockwell specialises in major brands. So they don’t just supply widgets, but sophisticated equipment as well. A look at the list of brands they handle reads as a who’s who of the electrical supply industry. Many of them have featured in this magazine before - Adaptaflex, Cooper Bussmann, Flexicon, Hellerman Tyton, Mita, Nexans, Rittal, Schneider Electric, Sick, Siemens, Unistrut and Weidmuller. The Rail Engineer has written about them all, and Lockwell supplies them all.

Stock can be despatched for same day delivery from a local branch, or for next day delivery nationwide. If that still isn’t quick enough, it can be collected from one of their 20 trade counters.

Crucial knowledge trainingProduct knowledge is important, both

to distributor staff so they can advise the customer on what he actually wants, but also to the user and installer so that the correct item is specified and ordered the first time around.

Also, there are very few disciplines that are subject to greater and more ongoing change than the electrical engineering industry. Implementation of European Standards, integration of new legislation and huge advancements in control technology mean that companies need to continually review and revise their ability to respond to these changes. One essential issue in this is the education and training of key staff in the latest standards required by the industry. This suggests a requirement for greater flexibility within the workforce with a leaning toward multi-tasking.

In response to this, Lockwell has established a dedicated, fully equipped technical and training centre in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire.

There are also satellite training rooms at its Nottingham, Bristol and Wrexham branches to cater for staff and customer training.

Courses cover a spectrum of disciplines from industry regulations and statutory legislation to programmable industrial control processors. Most courses can be customised to suit particular company requirements, and are also held to introduce specific new products in conjunction with the manufacturers. Emphasis throughout is on the practical approach rather than the theoretical and there is ample opportunity for hands-on experience using state-of-the-art equipment.

In recognition of the standard of training that can be given, Lockwell has been awarded City Guilds Approved Training Centre status and has also gained the status of NICEIC Recognised Training Provider.

Eco-nomicalOne area in which Lockwell is very proactive

is energy saving. It set up an Eco projects division in 2010 which can assist clients with all aspects from initial energy audits which can identify straight line energy savings right through to measuring and monitoring current energy consumption and recommending solutions which can result in significant economies.

The Eco projects division also covers the supply and installation of energy efficient lighting, power factor correction equipment, motor controls using inverter drive solutions and renewable energy equipment.

So much more Wholesalers are so much more than just

a warehouse or a trade counter. They are an essential link in the supply chain which takes parts from the major manufacturers, many of them overseas, and makes them available for a project or maintenance task at a local level. They can advise on which items to use for a particular application, and train their customers on how best to use and install them.

At Lockwell’s level, the combination of holding a comprehensive stock, offering specialist training and being able to advise on eco-projects and other electrical products makes the company almost unique.

Without wholesalers like Lockwell, all those everyday engineering tasks would be almost impossible. Distributors supply electrical items, nuts and bolts, PPE, steel and plastics, paint and lubricants, and all those million-and-one items that get overlooked and are then needed in a hurry. Stockists are often the only way to get hold of them

And we shouldn’t forget them.

Supplying a servicethe rail engineer • March 201352


visit our website to find your nearest branch www.lockwell.co.uk

Independent electrical wholesaler since 1975

£4 million of stock held throughout the UK

National branch network

In house calibration centre

Free next day delivery on ex-stock items.

Call and collect trade counter

24 hour ordering & support, 7 days a week, 365 days per year

Access to over 2000 leading manufacturers

Traditional service values from friendly, knowledgeable staff

Free technical help, service and local & onsite training

The Lockwell branch network is supported by a

purpose-built Training Centre based at Tewkesbury,

Gloucestershire. The City & Guilds Approved Centre offers

training solutions covering a wide range of technical subjects.

FOR OVER 35 YEARS

THE VERY BEST IN

SUPPLY & SUPPORT



Northern towns such as Crewe, Darlington, York and Stockton will forever be associated with the birth of the railway - not just in this country but throughout the world. Yet there’s one other

town from the north that probably stands head and shoulders above them all when it comes to the manufacture of locomotive legends. That town is Doncaster - and from behind the sturdy iron gates of its famous railway workshops (affectionately known as ‘The Plant’) emerged some of the greatest steam engines the world has ever seen. The Flying Scotsman, Silver Link, Blue Peter and the Mallard were all built at The Plant - and whilst they no longer race like thoroughbreds along the railway lines of Britain, each and every one has secured its place in railway history.

Over the last thirty years Doncaster’s rail industry has been in somewhat of a decline, yet this small corner of industrial South Yorkshire refuses to forsake its hold on trains, permanent way, and switches and crossings. The Plant is still in operation (albeit very much leaner than during its heyday), and there are several railway supply companies that continue to be very active and successful despite ever changing goal posts and economic restraints.

One of the companies leading the revival is Hird Rail Services - a company that has been in existence since the post-war

glory days, but one which prefers to look to the future rather than live off its heritage.

Managing director Michael Hird, a natural innovator, is not a person to stand still and is always looking for the next ‘big thing’. Five years ago he introduced a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility for the production of insulated block joints. More recently, he collaborated with FTI in Seattle to bring a breakthrough cold hole expansion kit to Europe - a process which prevents cracking around bolt holes in rail. Now he’s unearthed another potential winner in the form of an innovative polymer cable ducting system.

Trough-Tec Systems (TTS)TTS polymer cable ducting

has evolved from 15 years of process and product development in Japan, where it is now the market-leading railway cable troughing product. The system (developed and manufactured by Furukawa Electric Co.) has been installed by all of Japan’s railway operators - including the Tokaido Shinkansen which carries the record-breaking Bullet train. Now Britain will become the first country outside of the ‘land of the rising sun’ to be introduced to this polymer ducting as an alternative to traditional concrete .

As Michael Hird explained, Britain is still seen as a rich prize for so many overseas suppliers to the rail industry: “There may be far bigger railway projects underway in South America and the Far East but every global supplier wants to get on the map in the UK, as it’s still regarded as the hub of the railway market. We naturally feel very privileged that Furukawa selected Hird as the ideal partner for their western ambitions - identifying us as having the strengths and qualities they need to establish this superb cable transportation system into highly important markets.”

The new system will be supplied by TTS - a specialist division that has been set up within the Hird Rail group to focus on the marketing of polymer ducting across Britain and Europe.

Japanese evolutioncomes to the UK



Contact Gary Elliott for more details

The future is here

Polymer Cable DuctingNo other railway cable management product offers as many benefits:

Unique reinforced polymer composite

Anti-vandal /anti-theft features

Lightweight and tough

Flame retardant, anti-static and UV resistant

Impact and weather resistant

Flexible expansion joints to cope with changing temperatures

Comprehensive range of sizes, shapes, gradients and angles

Interfacing joints to existing concrete versions

Manufactured from 100% recycled material

Modular components in 8 sizes for all types of terrain

Sealed joints to keep out rodents

T: +44 (0)1302 343 633E: [email protected]

A host of benefitsAfter 15 years of meticulous

evolution by the Japanese manufacturers, TTS benefits from having ready-made test results and usage reports covering durability, weather resistance, extreme temperature change, loading, impact, wind/vibration resistance, flame retardance, expansion tolerances, UV resistance and anti-static performance - all of which make very satisfactory reading.

Railway operators will welcome the long list of advantages that TTS polymer cable ducting offers. Firstly, being made from 100 recycled material, it’s pleasingly environmentally friendly. Also, not only are the units easy to handle - reducing three or four-man lifts to a single-man operation - but they also feature built-in theft deterrents to help fight the war on cable theft.

However, the main advantage has to be the flexibility and versatility of the system, which reaches places that rigid concrete

troughs cannot. With so many modular components available in eight capacity sizes, connections on TTS units are easy and any ducting combination is possible. Male and female connectors are designed into alternate ends of the ducts, which means that no joint grouting is required. Pan and tilting flexibility in the joints also means a bending angle of 2 to 5 degrees can be achieved (enabling the route to form a natural radius of 13 to 15 metres), making the laying of ducts on uneven surfaces much easier all round.

Taking TTS into EuropeThe man leading the TTS drive

is Gary Elliott - who has moved from the role of commercial director at LB Foster (the specialist friction management and insulated rail joint company) to head up the introduction of Trough-Tec Systems into the UK and European rail market. Gary has over thirty years in the rail industry starting his career as an apprentice draughtsman for switch and crossing manufacturer Railway and General in Nottingham. Lengthy spells at Balfour Beatty and Portec Rail have seen a varied career develop through engineering into the commercial world of business development.

Since unveiling TTS ducting to the European market, Gary says the system has been warmly received by many national network operators: “Installations have already been

successfully completed in the UK at the Reading station area development and Acton Yard Crossrail project, and plans are underway for trials in several other countries in Western Europe and Scandinavia.

“This product caught my attention the first time I saw it, and now it’s great to be involved with such a dynamic company as TTS. Above all else, we want to make things simple and solve people’s problems. There is now a cable transportation solution that comes in kit form on a pallet with all of the materials you need to complete the job, including straights, curves, bends, slopes, junctions and transitions - all supplied with lockable lids. The future really is here.”



Over recent years, there have been a number of articles written about the progress of the £895m Reading station project. It is not the intention of this article to reproduce the significant engineering challenges that this project has so far presented to the engineer,

since this information is available in various back issues of The Rail Engineer. However, a recent invitation to meet Jim Weeden, deputy programme director for Network Rail, coincided with the launch of a public exhibition in Reading station in preparation for yet another critical stage in the programme that will be taking place over the Easter period.

It also gave Network Rail the opportunity to remind everyone that the project that started in 2008, and planned to be completed in 2016, is now scheduled to be completed 12 months early - in 2015. This is a reassuring message for the passengers and the associated train operators which use Reading station. However, there are still some significant challenges to be overcome and Easter is imminent!

Transfer deckThe new footbridge, referred to as the

‘transfer deck’, built by principal contractor Costain, is now in position. Lift shafts, stairways and 33-metre-long escalators have now been constructed to provide access to new and old platforms across the station.

Teams of subcontractors have been working round the clock to ensure that cladding, lighting, flooring and the myriad of other fixtures required are in place to enable the deck to be opened to the public after Easter. The transfer deck also offers access into the station from both the north and south side of the station for the first time.

The existing passenger footbridge at the east end of the station, which provides access to the multi-storey car park, has to be closed. This will mean that, for a short period, passengers have to use a temporary walking route via a refurbished subway. Removal of the footbridge will enable the new platforms to be completed and ensure that adequate signal sighting is available for the new track

and signalling layout which is slowly but surely taking shape. It will also then not obstruct the overhead wires required for the recently sanctioned Great Western main line (GWML) electrification project.

New subwayWhen the new north entrance to the station

is opened and the old footbridge removed, the subway will provide the only means for pedestrians to get from one side of the station to the other. The intention is for the subway to become a separate responsibility from the station infrastructure and to be maintained by Reading Borough Council. New lighting and a digital CCTV system will be installed in the subway which will provide an important route into the city centre for those who live on the north side of the Thames.

Jim Weeden emphasised that, although it will be a great step forward when the new transfer deck is opened to passengers, there is still a significant amount of work to carry out to the platforms and the canopies. This work is essential to ensure that the bright and lighter

Reading Stationa YEAR early! COLIN CARR



design will continue to improve the ambience of the existing, rather dull, Victorian platform canopies.

To the west of the station alongside the route to Bristol, there is a narrow, 2km long, linear site that houses the nearly completed new train depot. This will replace the existing depot that has to be demolished to accommodate a new freight chord and high speed flyover structure. The new depot is 200 metres long and 30 metres wide. It consists of one heavy maintenance road, one light maintenance road and two servicing roads. For those of you who might be interested, the site sits alongside the venue for the much acclaimed Reading Rock Festival - occasional noisy neighbours!

Diesel and electric combinedMany design changes had to be made after work started on the depot

in order to accommodate both diesel and electric rolling stock following the recent announcement to electrify the main line. Therefore, there are access platforms to serve both types of rolling stock on each road through the depot. Steve Green, Network Rail’s senior project manager, explained that it is probably the only depot that has multipurpose maintenance roads. He also stated that the end user, First Great Western (FGW), is really looking forward to using this facility because it will be the first depot that they have used that will be designed around their maintenance regime. Elsewhere, it is the other way round. Is this another argument for central procurement of trains, I wonder?

Network Rail planned to complete the work by August 2013, but at present they are confident that they will be able to hand it over to FGW earlier. As well as the depot itself, the site includes facilities for carriage washing, under frame cleaning and fuelling. More than 8km of new track has been installed with through roads and sidings. New signalling for the depot is in place with its own control centre which links into the Didcot signal centre. The associated S C in the depot complex is operated by in-bearer clamp locks. The entire infrastructure for electrification is in place and they even have a bright new office block built alongside offering a superb view of the festival stage. What more could they want?

So, the plan is that the new train depot will be open for use at the end of 2013 as, on the opposite side of the tracks, the existing depot will be demolished so that two Cow Lane bridges can be widened, easing traffic congestion near Reading West station. The plan is to complete work on the Cow Lane bridges during 2014.

It is worth remembering that the whole intention is to ease one of the UK’s largest rail bottlenecks. Essential work over Easter will enable engineers to complete the work on building five more platforms to combat congestion, as well as creating two entrances and the transfer deck footbridge to give passengers much improved access.

New flyoverFurther west Balfour Beatty has been appointed as principal contractor

to build a new 2km long railway viaduct alongside the old depot. This will separate the heavy freight trains heading north from Southampton docks from the GWML.

Network Rail’s major programme director, Robbie Burns, said the project was more than just upgrading a station. He added: “We’re building a viaduct, constructing new bridges and embankments, making massive alterations to track layout, renewing signalling and building a train depot.”

To sum up, Network Rail’s revised programme amalgamates three separate pieces of engineering work at Easter 2013. This will see new entrances and platforms brought into use at the station offering significant improvements but there is much more to be done. The project will not be completed until 2015 following big alterations to the track layout including the construction of a viaduct to take fast lines over slower ones. Progress to date will reassure passengers and train operators that the disruption will be worthwhile, and the good news is that it will be completed a year earlier than planned. There will certainly be many more interesting articles to write about this fascinating, challenging and very impressive engineering project.

See our full range of

Railway Safety Products

for Depot & Trackside

use on our website

Or call us for a catalogue

on 020 8428 2027

www.mcelectronics.co.ukT: 020 8428 2027

F: 020 8428 2027

E: [email protected]

www.mcelectronics.co.uk

MC Electronics Ltd

61 Grimsdyke Road

Hatch End

Middx HA5 4PP

THE NEW MCE ‘LIMPET’ NOT TO BE MOVED

LOCKABLE FIXING SYSTEM...

“No drilling required”

...allows staff to take responsibility for, and guarantee their own

personal safety whilst working on any type of Rolling Stock.

WHICH HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE - UNTIL NOW!



For many years now, the use of trenchless (No-Dig) technology has increased considerably across many areas of the utility and buried service industry. A significant proportion of this use has

centred on applications in the water sector. However, the technology can also be successfully used by rail engineers.

There are numerous reasons for buried services to cross under railway tracks. For example, recent experience has shown just how difficult rail transportation can be when track drainage systems, rivers, streams, culverts and other under-rail crossings fail to work effectively. Cables, water pipes and sewers (other than surface water drainage) also need to cross under railway lines. The repair and maintenance of these systems and the installation of new crossings by traditional techniques can bring train speeds down to a crawl as works progress beneath operating rail lines.

A variety of trenchless technologies now offer increasingly effective solutions for under-track installations and repairs that minimise disruption to rail services by ensuring that tracks are not disturbed.

The types of works that have or can be utilised in under-track operations are: » Surveying, identification and

tracing/mapping of existing culverts, pipelines, ducting,

cabling and cable ducts that run beneath rail lines;

» Renovation of existing pipes, culverts, ducts and their associated manholes/accesses using various lining/repair options;

» Construction of new rail crossing pipelines using guided or unguided auger boring, microtunnelling/pipejacking, horizontal directional drilling, pipe ramming or moling techniques;

» Replacement of old or damaged pipes with a new pipe of similar or larger size using pipebursting techniques.

It is a very wide topic, so this article will look at the options available for new installations.

Making an impactFor new service/utility

installations there is a wide range of technologies that allow under-track works with minimal impact on train services.

At smaller diameters, there is the option to utilise moling techniques. These use a

reciprocating hammer unit to push through the soil installing a trailing pipe or duct as it advances. However, these units tend to be unguided and have limited range depending on ground conditions. As they operate by compressing the ground through which they pass around the outside of the hammer they also need to be used at a depth where this ground compression would not affect the track above due to any heave created by the hammer’s passing.

Continuing on the impact hammer theme, another technique that uses hammer technology is pipe ramming. This utilises steel pipe as either a carrier or as the final pipeline. Ground conditions have to be suitable for the pipe to be pushed through.

The steel pipe is positioned at the start point of the new crossing and the impact hammer, normally a much larger and more powerful unit than those used for moling, is installed at the rear of the pipe. When the hammer is activated, the steel pipe is driven into the ground along a preset route. Whilst the system is generally unguided, the fact that such installations tend to be used over relatively short distances means that any deviation from the target line is relatively small.

Providing the ground is relatively self-supporting, no loss of ground occurs as the pipe advances because the ‘spoil’ remains within the pipe until the pipe ram is complete. This means there should be little, if any, heave or subsidence in the ground surrounding the new pipe during the installation process and so little or no effect on the tracks above. The spoil is then removed from the pipe, making it ready for use.

Steerable drillingAn alternative technology that

has been used to install rail crossings is horizontal directional drilling (HDD). One of the major advantages of this technique is that it is steerable so it can follow a pre-determined course from one side of the track to another. This steerability also means that the crossings can be designed to start at ground level and then pass at any required depth beneath the track and the track substructure without any interference with railway operation during the works.

This technique is used for the installation of plastic pipes as both operating mains and casing pipes. Ductile and steel pipe, if handled correctly, can also accommodate the curvatures normally associated with such bores.

HDD works are normally multi-stage operations. The first stage requires a small diameter pilot bore to be driven on the required line of the installation. The steering of the bore can either be by wireline monitoring, if no track access is available, or by using walkover antenna systems that track a transmitter sonde located close to the boring head underground. More recent developments in the latter system have meant that, over limited distances, the sonde/receiver system can also now be used to monitor the pilot bore without requiring track access for plotting the bore location.

Once the pilot bore is completed, it is upsized (reamed) open to the required diameter for the final pipe, duct or cable being installed which is then pulled through the finished size bore.

TRENCHLESStechnologyTRENCHLESStechnologyTRENCHLESSIAN CLARKE,NO DIG MEDIA SERVICES

technology

A timber heading.

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LTD



One limitation on the use of HDD is that significant water is needed to provide the boring fluids (muds) used throughout the pilot bore, reaming and pipe/cable installation operations. Also, depending on the ultimate diameter of the installation, access for machinery of considerable size may be needed for the drilling rig to operate correctly and safely. So, site accessibility may be key to such works.

Pipejacking and microtunnellingTunnelling has always been an option for

under rail crossings. Traditional timber heading has often been used to create the necessary tunnels. However, the manual labour required and the techniques of excavation do have the down-side that they may cause disturbance to the track above, particularly in the time between excavation of the face and new support being placed. The use of trenchless techniques such as microtunnelling and pilot auger microtunnelling tend to largely overcome this disadvantage if correctly applied.

Pilot auger microtunnelling is a halfway house between HDD and full microtunnelling. This is because, as with HDD, the first stage of a pilot auger installation is the driving of a smaller diameter pilot bore that is accurately driven along the desired path of the final installation. Normally this utilises some form of pre-installed laser targeting and guidance

system to maintain the line of the pilot bore which is advanced using a jacking frame to insert a series of ‘drill’ rods behind the drill head as it advances through the ground.

Once this part of the bore is completed, the second stage expands the pilot bore to the required diameter for the pipe installation. This is done using a cutting head and auger chain that sits within an auger casing that is jacked into the ground using the pilot bore as its guide. After the auger chain reaches the exit side of the pilot bore, the final pipe is jacked into place behind the auger casings which are ejected into the exit side pit and recovered for reuse on the next project. When the pipe has been completely installed, the machinery is removed and the pipe is ready for use as a casing or to be connected to the product pipe lines on either side of the crossing point.

The difference between pilot auger and full microtunnelling is that, whilst the pipe jacking system is used once again to install the pipes, the bore is completed at full diameter first time. This may require more substantial equipment and pipes that have a higher capacity to carry jacking loads and a significantly greater site footprint on either side of the track alignment.

Open or closed face pipejacking may also be an option on larger diameter rail crossings. Here the working face tends to be excavated, not remotely by a cutting head operated from surface, but by man-entry crews. Because of the size of the operation that is needed to set up such a scheme, this technique is not often used unless the crossing is a particularly major one in both size and importance.

Pipe archThe pipe arch installation has been used on

a number of occasions around the world to complete rail crossings for larger diameter installations such as underpasses or crossings for new roads or footways. This technique uses either HDD or microtunnelling methods to create, as the name suggests, a pipe arch

that defines the perimeter of the crossing being constructed. The degree of accuracy offered by these directional systems means that the pipe arch can be positioned very precisely so that each bore that makes up the pipe arch interconnects with those on either side to form a sealed barrier at the crossing wall. Once positioned, the centre section of ground is excavated within the sealed arch and supported or lined, as the project requires, to create the completed underpass. In some cases, large pre-cast concrete tunnel segments have been constructed outside of the pipe arch and jacked into place as the excavation proceeds.

There have also been examples where this technique has also utilised other excavation pre-treatment options such as ground freezing to not only create the perimeter arch but also to create ground conditions within the excavation section that make the soil easier to dig out.

No movementThe various options offered by all these

techniques mean that the rail track above the excavation, whilst constantly monitored, moves little, if at all, during the works and so can remain open to traffic throughout the construction period.

Much of this technology is used by various utility companies and the plant being worked on or installed is often not directly the responsibility of the rail operator. However, the need to pass these services under rail tracks makes it very important that railway engineers are fully up-to-speed on the technologies that are currently available to them when dealing with third party operators and owners to ensure that the impact on their track, and therefore their rail service, is minimised wherever possible.

The family of trenchless technologies also offers railway engineers the facility to pass their own services beneath their rail lines without disrupting services.

Hand driven pipe jacking or mechanised pipe jacking can be utilised.

Pilot auger microtunnelling for various diameter pipe jack installations.





History has made heroes of the men who powered Britain’s economic and social revolution through the 18th and 19th centuries. Names that still inspire: Arkwright, Darby, Stephenson, Watt, Telford. More transitory and villainous was the notoriety bestowed on

a few Government fall guys, hand-picked to turn the clocks back by decimating industries, only for anonymity to claim them again.

During his tenure at British Steel, Sir Ian MacGregor remorselessly shut plants and jettisoned people, preparing the ground for privatisation. He then took a wrecking ball to our coal mines, bringing regions to their knees. And yet, despite the chasm he left behind, few remember him - he has not forever become Murderous MacGregor, or something equally burning. It is perhaps unjust then that the contraction of Britain’s railway network a generation earlier is still, for many, attributable solely to an engineer and physicist, recruited

from the private sector to drag the industry back into profitability - an ultimately futile task.

People have protective instincts towards the railways, even if they don’t use them. In the pre-digital age, they fitted neatly into the fabric of our towns and villages, earning favour as a bringer of employment, commodities and freedom. So we felt compelled to pin their demise on a wrong-doer, and we didn’t have far to look. It will only ever be “Beeching’s axe” that severed our branch lines and

disenfranchised whole districts. That we were being royally seduced by the motor car’s independence was neither here nor there. That more than 3,000 miles of railway had been torn up in the 12 years preceding his infamous report is a reality of inconvenience. It was all down to Dr Beeching.

This was of course a game involving a hopelessly stacked deck: misleading data, crooked calculations, vested interests. It was classic politics. Everyone knew the outcome before the process had begun; it was just a case of contriving the evidence.

A railway platformThere’s no denying that Dr Richard

Beeching had a very fine intellect. Gaining a First Class honours degree and PhD from London’s Imperial College, his early career was built around metallurgy, physics and mechanical engineering research. He spent the Second World War attached to the Ministry of Supply, working in the shell design section under Sir Ewart Smith, a former Chief Engineer with Imperial Chemical Industries. He joined the firm as Smith’s technical assistant in 1948, rising at pace through a series of analytical posts before, at the age of 40, being sent to Canada where he directed the construction and operation of a Terylene plant. Returning home, his talents secured him chairmanship of ICI’s Metals Division before joining the board as its Technical Director in 1957.The Brecon & Merthyr Railway was a rural, single-track

route that had served the South Wales coal industry. With few passengers, it was a prime candidate for closure.

Snow Hill Station was deemed surplus to Birmingham’s requirements and run down, finally closing in March 1972.

PHOTO: RAILPHOTOLIBRARY.COM




Smith played one more role in shaping Beeching’s professional future, recommending him to Tory Transport Minister Ernest Marples after Smith declined the offer of a seat on the working group seeking a way forward for the British Transport Commission. The BTC was in a parlous state, thanks largely to its overburdening bureaucracy and the financial black hole the railways had fallen into. The group’s chairman, Sir Ivan Stedeford, found Beeching an impressive character but locked horns with him over his belief that only drastic pruning could save the industry. This was however music to the ears of Marples who, in contravention of Parliamentary rules, had remained an 80 shareholder in the civil engineering company he had co-founded in 1948, which subsequently secured contracts for several major road schemes. Valued at upwards of £350,000, he eventually sold the shares to his wife.

Fall from graceEarly in the 20th century, the railway system peaked at 23,440 route miles.

It had developed at a mind-boggling rate, overcoming daunting physical barriers to achieve almost omnipresence. But the emergence of road transport and the pounding it took during the Second World War left the network in a wretched state, in both physical and commercial terms. Under Clement Attlee’s Labour Government, the 1947 Transport Act made way for nationalisation, giving life to British Railways - operating name for the BTC’s Railway Executive - on 1st January 1948.

Established soon after was a Branch Lines Committee, putting down a marker that set the direction for the next 20 years. It operated under a straightforward remit: to close the least-used lines, based on the contention that some parts of the network would never pay and offered no great social value. But BR’s finances continued to haemorrhage, with an operating loss recorded in 1955. To eliminate this, a bold modernisation plan was developed with the goal of making the railways attractive again: faster speeds, greater reliability, more capacity. The £1.24 billion investment would bring electrification, renewed track and signalling, vast marshalling yards, new rolling stock and the replacement of steam with diesel and electric traction.

Derailed:The Complicity DividendA retrospective on the shenanigans surrounding the Beeching Report

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Campaigners extolled DMUs as a sensible cost-cutting measure.

The Great Central, our newest main line, proved a controversial closure.





It was destined to fail as losses mounted, reaching £42 million in 1959. This though painted a distorted picture as much of that deficit was attributable to declining coal traffic. Operating costs had been substantially cut, meanwhile passenger receipts were rising. Some branch lines actually made money. But the die had been cast. By 1962, in public ownership the network had lost over 3,300 route miles. And the railway community was being decimated too, staff numbers falling by more than a quarter to 474,000. Over the same period, car and lorry mileage soared by 10 per year, fuelled latterly by the lifting of petrol rationing.

Radical solutions were sought to the railway’s tangled finances. Stedeford’s deliberations ran out of time, having heard evidence mostly from the road lobby. But

against the odds, his committee found itself unwilling to endorse the line closure programme advocated by the Ministry. For rail, its verdict proved fair and largely benign, so much so that it was not made public. The modernisation plan, which Stedeford had recommended for review, was cut back, with investment on secondary and branch lines almost drying up altogether.

The 1962 Transport Act abolished the British Transport Commission, replacing it with a number of bodies amongst which was the British Railways Board. It went live on 1st January 1963. Appointed its first Chairman was Richard Beeching who had led the BTC for the previous 18 months. Controversy attended with his salary award. Whilst, at £24,000, it reflected his ICI pay, this was more than double that of any other nationalised industry’s head. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan only earned £14,000. Perceived as unjust, the sense of resentment against the Doctor intensified.

The Fifties’ cull of branch lines was not delivering results. Studies showed that it might

have been cheaper to subsidise some of them, rather than opt for closure. Social benefits also emerged in favour of retention. Against this background, a noisy protest movement had formed, with the Railway Development Association adding to its volume. Professor E R Hondelink, a respected United Nations transport consultant, asserted that branch line losses were comparatively small and could be turned around through efficiencies, instead fingering bureaucracy and a bloated management structure for the railway’s ills.

But the Government was having none of it. The ’62 Act included provisions to limit the powers of the local Consultative Committees which held inquiries into closure proposals, removing the obligation to consider social and strategic factors. To deliver a transport revolution, the Government engineered an easier ride and launched a vigorous press campaign to silence its critics, ramping up the case against rural lines by attributing most of the industry’s losses to them. More would have to go.

Protesting villagers, led by their minister, Rev Brydon Maben, block the level crossing at Newcastleto, halting the last train over the Waverley line.

With a plain clothes policeman looking on, demonstrators gather at Hawick on 4th January 1969 to await a BR special.

PHOTO: BRUCE MCCARTNEY

PHOTO: BRUCE MCCARTNEY



The axeman comethBeeching’s much-anticipated

report on The Reshaping of British Railways was first exposed to scrutiny on 27th March 1963. Amongst its highlights were the now familiar recommendations: 5,000 route miles closed to passengers and 2,363 stations shut. One third of the network was carrying just 1 of the traffic, he asserted. The least-used 50 of stations contributed only 2 of passenger revenues.

On digging deeper, the cold character of this profit and loss exercise revealed itself. Page after page of almost pure accountancy, such were his terms of reference. Social and economic benefits were disregarded; so too were the cost-saving measures that could have brought salvation for some lines.

Many conclusions were founded on passenger density figures collated as part of a major traffic census over a single week in April 1961. This disadvantaged lines into holiday resorts which were unsurprisingly quiet at this time. In a double whammy for them, the viability - or otherwise - of individual

stations was determined through analysis of their ticket sale receipts during 1960, greatly handicapping places that people mostly travelled to, not from. Visitors to those holiday resorts would have far outnumbered locals heading the other way, but the revenue they brought did not count in their stations’ favour. The contributory value to the network of any station or route - perhaps as a feeder of commuters onto a main line - was discounted; they stood on their own feet or fell.

This approach effectively meant curtains for almost every branch line, depriving huge geographical areas of any rail service at all. And strategic routes would be lost too: the Waverley, the Great Central, the Settle & Carlisle, Stranraer-Dumfries. Through manipulation of the process and distortion of the figures, the case for tearing apart Britain’s railways had been set out. Accepted by the Government, Beeching’s “reshaping” prompted uproar beyond Westminster, especially in communities affected by the cuts. Rural bus services were often unreliable, running to

a thin timetable and sometimes completely disappearing during winter months.

All was not lost though. In a surprising strategic blunder, Beeching’s report detailed a series of financial assumptions for route maintenance, signalling, stations and train movements - offset against income - supposedly to demonstrate the unviability of a hypothetical branch line operating an hourly service to stations two-and-a-half miles apart. The tipping point between profit and loss was, he claimed, about 17,000 weekly passengers. But what these assumptions actually revealed was a whitewash - they were all worst-case: low passenger revenues, no freight, unrealistic timetables, inflated running costs, no staff or signalling economies. With some effort, the break-even point could be halved in terms of passenger numbers. These skewed calculations were compounded by equally flawed suppositions supporting replacement buses. Beeching had inadvertently handed campaigners a stick with which to beat him and they did so with some relish.

Ossett Station served a substantial Yorkshire town but was razed to make way for housing.

PHOTO: ROGER HEPWORTH



Numbers gameLeading the opposition to the Fifties’

closures had been the Railway Development Association, founded in 1951. It fought a number of campaigns, most notably on the Isle of Wight where it hired a barrister and called witnesses to contest the BTC’s dubious figures. The most cogent challenge in the Sixties came from the Secretary of the newly-formed National Council on Inland Transport - a man with genuine experience of railway operations, something Beeching could only dream of.

Roger Calvert could see the cracks in the reshaping plan but the means of exploiting them - the Transport Users Consultative Committees - had been largely neutered by the 1962 Act. NCIT sought a legal mechanism to force the committees to examine lines’ finances, not just the question of hardship as was their revised theoretical scope. This came to a head at Buxton in May 1964 where the future of the line to Manchester was on the table. Calvert used Beeching’s own figures to dismantle those served up by British Railways, reducing the route’s projected £180,000 loss by 71 . Implementation of savings could allow it to turn a small profit. The Minister retreated, issuing a reprieve.

Calvert’s continued probing exposed a predictable truth: many threatened lines could cover their costs with modest operational changes, if they weren’t doing so already. Indeed a sizeable closure programme could actually cost BR money as main line and secondary routes lost the contributory revenue brought by the branches. The new order would not drive passengers onto subsided buses heading for a distant railhead; they’d end up buying a car.

It made little difference. In the immediate aftermath of the report’s publication, closures were halted while stock was taken. But as the 1964 General Election approached, they accelerated again, peaking that year as 1,058 route miles were done away with. Labour’s Harold Wilson secured a narrow victory on a

ticket of halting the most significant closures until a national transport review had been concluded. As is often the case in politics, with power came forgetfulness.

Victim supportBeeching II, a promised report into The

Development of the Major Trunk Routes, arrived on 16th February 1965. Avoiding the word “closure”, it made the case for actively developing 3,000 of the 7,500 miles “selected for retention” in the first report, an effective

admission that just lopping branches off the network would not necessarily bring profit. Underpinning these latest proposals was Beeching’s assertion that too many corridors featured duplicating lines, in some cases as many as four. Instead traffic would be focussed onto nine key routes. But few took the report seriously - it was pushed to one side, as was Beeching; Wilson deciding against an extension of his contract. In June 1965, clutching a Life Peerage, ICI welcomed him back.

Labour forged ahead with the cuts, under pressure from the road lobby and parts of the civil service. Only when Barbara Castle took Ministerial control in December 1965 were the brakes gradually applied. She concluded that the network should be stabilised at around 11,000 route miles, unveiling Network for Development plans and paving the way for socially-important loss-making lines to benefit from subsidies through the 1968 Transport Act. Whilst this saved some branches, most had already gone.

On the evening of Sunday 5th January 1969, blocked by protestors and running two hours

late, a London-bound sleeper train travelled over the Waverley for a final time - the last great casualty of the Beeching cuts. Amongst the wreckage were several unlikely survivors - the Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh lines, the South-West branches, the route through mid-Wales; even the Settle-Carlisle. But a stay of execution for the Hope Valley line would see the Bakewell route sacrificed, eventually taking down Woodhead.

Beeching was not a romantic. His mind was keen and methodical, just what the Government

wanted. Circumstances had contrived a balance sheet conundrum so he sought solutions amongst the numbers. Data was gathered and he immersed himself in it. What he didn’t see - or perhaps chose not to - was the intricacy of the railway machine, one part driving another; a precision instrument in careful balance. Instead he took a hammer to it.

Beyond ignorance lurked dogma and conspiracy. The railway was knackered and becoming a bottomless pit; roads were new and shiny - the next big thing - and those with a vested interest in having more of them would not be thwarted. No-one thought to look 30, 40, 50 years hence to a time when the two might comfortably coexist, supporting one-another. Who could have foreseen congestion and fuel prices pushing commuters back onto the train? It was all very short term.

But it’s harsh to define Beeching’s legacy in terms of the closures. He cared about the railway and contributed much to it, championing its role in moving bulk minerals and developing the Liner Train concept for containerised freight. There will always be the photographs though -melancholy scenes of dilapidated stations and overgrown trackbeds, redundant engines quietly rusting, tunnels bricked up, villagers huddling under brollies to await the daily bus.

The man himself categorised the cuts as “surgery, not mad chopping”. They were certainly clinical, both in concept and execution. But there was nothing cosmetic about them. This was frantic amputation without a firm diagnosis. The wounds inflicted by Beeching have not yet fully healed.

Calvert’s continued probing exposed a predictable truth: many threatened lines could cover their costs with modest operational changes, if they weren’t doing so already.

Victims of a brave new world: redundant locomotives await their fate.





With just weeks to go before Railtex 2013 opens its doors, the programme of seminars hosted by this magazine during the show is now almost complete and can be viewed at www.railtex.co.uk/railtex/seminars. Some 20 sessions will provide valuable insights

into technical topics ranging from the environmental performance of rolling stock, through signalling innovations to asset condition monitoring. Also featured, and already announced in these pages, will be keynote speeches by the Minister of State for Transport, the Chairman of Network Rail and the CEO of Crossrail.

Providing additional interest for show visitors will be presentations in the Project Update Theatre. Showcasing the latest developments in major rail schemes, seminars by senior Network Rail managers will brief audiences on the Birmingham Gateway Project, the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme and plans to electrify large sections of the system. There will also be an update on the UK’s planned high-speed rail network by a senior figure from HS2 Ltd, with an outline of procurement

strategy and business opportunities for British companies. And a representative of Hitachi Rail Europe will give a briefing on the IEP rolling stock programme.

These sessions and the seminar presentations are open to all, free of charge with no advance booking. They form just part of a wide range of attractions for visitors at this key industry event.

The exhibition at the heart of Railtex promises to be as impressive as ever, with most of the UK rail market’s best known suppliers present -

Alstom, Bombardier, GE Transportation, Hitachi, Invensys Rail, Siemens and Signalling Solutions are among companies with stands. Many smaller specialised firms providing essential products and services will also be taking part. There will be stand areas co-ordinated by the Rail Alliance and the Derby & Derbyshire Rail Forum and a new feature, The Yard, a display area in the main hall for larger equipment such as road-rail vehicles.

Railtex 2013 takes place at Earls Court in London from 30 April to 2 May. Pre-registering to visit the exhibition gives free entry, avoiding the £20 ticket price payable on the door. Registration is via the show website www.railtex.co.uk. The website also provides the very latest list of exhibitors, plus full details of the extensive range of activities taking place during the show.

COUNTDOWN CONTINUES

10:30

11:10

11:50

12:30

13:10

13:50

14:30

15:10

15:50

Tuesday 30 AprilOpening CeremonyStephen Brooks, Chairman, Mack Brooks ExhibitionsJeremy Candfield, Director General, RIA

The Scope of EMC Assurance in RailChris Marshman,Development Director, York EMC Services

Keynote SpeechRt Hon Simon Burns MP,Minister of State for Transport

Signal Sighting Forms:Taking the pain out of creationSimon Gardiner,Managing Director, Gioconda Limited

Automatic Reconfigurationfor Signalling PowerPaul Fleming,General Manager, Camlin Rail

Applications of Positioning & Scanning Technologies in Railway Construction and OperationsRon Bisio and Matthew Moss, Trimble

Thermal Imaging Technology and Analyticsfor Security ApplicationsDavid Dorn, Director of Thermal Business Unit PELCO by Schneider Electric

Wide Area Traffic ManagementPietro Zingarelli,Project Manager, Signalling Solutions Ltd

Link-up: Engaging with the Rail IndustryAnnette Gevaert, Director Rail and Transport, Achilles Information Ltd

Wednesday 1 MayKeynote SpeechRichard Parry-Jones CBE,Chairman, Network Rail

Safety Relevant Human Machine Interfacewith Vital Data Indication and Safe Data EntryDr. Karl-Heinz Schomaker, Head of Key Account Management, Deuta Werke GmbH

Increasing the Useful Life of SleepersUsing PolymersJohn Murray and Michael Land,Willamette Valley Company (WVCO)

Asset Condition Monitoring:The key to operational service improvementAlastair Norman, Head of Asset Condition Monitoring, Telent Technology Services Ltd

Signalling Upgradeon the London Underground Sub-Surface RailwayMatthew Steele, Programme Delivery Manager - ATC, London Underground

Monitoring Practices for the UK RailwaySimon Crowhen,Geomatics and Rail Product Manager, Topcon GB

Innovation and CollaborationNicholas Kay,Business Development Manager - Innovation, Siemens Rail Systems UK

Arc-Flash Clothing ProtectionJim Findlay,Associate, W L Gore

Open Data: Driving control room innovationNathan Day,Business Development Director, Rockshore

Thursday 2 MayKeynote SpeechAndrew Wolstenholme OBE,Chief Executive Officer, Crossrail

Improving the Environmental Performanceof Rolling StockJon Seddon, Director - Marketing and Strategy, Bombardier Transportation

More life: less maintenanceInnovative rail products reducing lifecycle costsDavid Benton and Daniel Pyke,Tata Steel

Industrial Safety PLCsfor modern future-oriented railway infrastructureDavid Collier, Business Development Manager,Pilz Automation Technology

Creating systems leadership to drive valueDelivery and management across your organisationAdrian Terry and Ian Presland,Thales Training and Consultancy

The future of railway investment in WalesProfessor Stuart Cole CBE,Professor of Transport, University of Glamorgan

The Rail Engineer will once again be hosting the keynote speeches and technical seminars at Railtex.

These will be held in the seminar theatre which is between stands A107 and C103.

Entry is free and all are welcome.



With award winning pro ects such as the River We are seeking a Chartered or near Chartered

Tees Bridge Reconstruction pro ect, HBPW are Civil or Structural Engineer with experience of

developing a reputation with both Network Rail work in the Rail Industry to oin our young and

and most of the main contractors in the rail enthusiastic motivated team. We are offering

sector for our responsive, proactive and an excellent salary and benefits package and

innovative approach towards the repair or the scope for you to progress your career

refurbishment of existing rail assets and the within our practice.

construction of new rail infrastructure.

All applications to be forwarded to

Our work encompasses bridge works, station h.haynes hbpwconsulting.co.uk or by post to

refurbishment, train maintenance facilities and HBPW LLP, 43 Bridgegate, Retford,

ma or temporary works. Notts, DN22 U www.hbpw.co.uk

Chartered Civil orStructural Engineer

otti ams ire E celle t salary a e efits

South Yorkshirec£60,000 - £70,000 plus other benefits

Head of Rail Business Development and Bid Management

As a substantial and growing civil engineering » Take ownership of strategic market intelligence » Demonstrable commercial acumen with an

and infrastructure maintenance business in the initiatives and the delivery of business enthusiastic and determined approach

UK rail industry, our client seeks to strengthen its' promotional activities » Good personal skills in communication and

management team with the appointment of a » Manage tender feedback and input into presentation

senior level business development professional. post-tender analysis

The market is now offering many opportunities » Develop and implement an integrated This is a business critical, professional level

for development and our client intends to build submissions and proposals process across role reporting to the Managing Director and

upon its' success in recent years. all functions so relevant academic qualifications will be

appreciated although the ability to exert

The key aspects of the role include: Candidates will have: influence in the rail industry will be equally

» Develop and deliver a strategic plan for » A track record of success in business beneficial.

business growth with new and existing clients development and knowledge of the multi-

» Lead the bidding processes, acting as Bid disciplinary rail industry, particularly Network Rail Please forward your cv and covering letter to

Manager as required, on major rail tenders » The ability to influence at senior levels and [email protected] or call on

» Ensure the quality of all proposals and build strong relations 0115 959 9687 with any queries.

submissions to clients and chair key tender » Experience of rail projects and knowledge of

and progress discussions the civil engineering contract environment

“An outstanding opportunity to join

a successful and well established

business that has a strong sector

reputation and is part of a UK

quoted group of companies”

www.rgsexecutive.co.uk


Great opportunities with a fast moving company

a Balfour Beatty and Alstom UK company

All the above positions have the following benefits: We offer a competitive salary plus a range of benefits including a contributory pension and 25 days holiday.

Signalling Solutions is a company formed by

combining the complementary signalling

resources and products of Alstom Transport

Information Solutions UK and Balfour Beatty

Rail Projects.

We provide individual products and complete

solutions to any customer requiring design,

installation, testing, commissioning and

product support for signalling, power and

telecommunications applications in theUK.

With an unparalleled product range that

includes UK compatible and approved

equipment with cutting edge ERTMS and

Traffic Management systems already in use

across Europe, and a mounting order book

we have an exciting future that we want to

share with you.

Due to our growing reputation within the

industry for delivering major projects we

continue to win new and exciting contracts

UK wide. In order to deliver these projects

Signalling Solutions has a range of exciting

and demanding career opportunities.

If you are looking for a new challenge and

want to make a real contribution to the

success of our business, we have

opportunities in the following disciplines:

• Design

• Project Management

• Project Engineering

• Systems Engineering

• Testing

We’re seeking candidates who are keen to

develop their skills and who can match

our enthusiasm for success. In return for

your commitment and contribution, you

can expect an excellent package and the

opportunity to shape your career the way

that you want, with training, development

and career planning.

Please apply by sending your CV

[email protected]

For further information, or to make an application:Tel: +44 (0)1332 262179 email: [email protected]

Come and visit us at Railtex stand E21 or book a time to have a chat with us!

ARE YOULOOKING FORsomething new?

UK Power Networks Services is a leading provider of electrical infrastructure with signifi cant experience of working on high profi le transport projects such as High Speed 1, High Speed 2 and Crossrail.

Infl uencing your energy strategies with integrated solutions

Contact us by visiting: www.ukpowernetworksservices.co.uk

Consulting | Technologies | Engineering | Construction | Operation & Maintenance | Finance

UK Power Networks Services:• Consistently delivers results on the most challenging projects • Can undertake the total requirements of any strategic infrastructure project • Has access to a wealth of international experience in providing fi nance solutions

the rail engineer - issue 101 - march 2013

Documents