Representatives from across the rail industry celebrated last night (Thursday 27 November) at the RailStaff Awards 2025.
Held at Birmingham’s NEC, the event shines a spotlight on the people whose dedication keeps the railway running. Rail managers, customer service assistants, apprentices, training managers and many more were there, reflecting the industry’s wide range of skills and roles.
Bursting with excitement, pride, and celebration, the RailStaff Awards is more than a glittering ceremony. It’s a heartfelt tribute to the people who keep Britain’s railways running – the everyday heroes whose dedication, compassion, and professionalism make the industry what it is.
Always a spectacular event, this year was no different with attendees transported to a welcoming winter wonderland. On arrival, guests stepped into a snow-dusted Alpine village high in the mountains, where an end-of-season après ski party was in full swing. The ceremony was attended by an unprecedented 1,062 guests and attracted a record 855 nominations and 6,050 votes cast.
Broadcaster, journalist, and former politician Michael Portillo led the celebrations, putting guests at ease with warmth, wit, and unmistakable flair. Michael rose to prominence as a cabinet minister in the 1980s and 1990s, before embarking on a hugely successful broadcasting career. His deep-rooted passion for trains has taken him across the globe as the presenter of hit series including Great British Railway Journeys, Great Continental Railway Journeys, and Great American Railroad Journeys. He was a superb choice of host for the night’s proceedings.
After a fabulous dining experience and with each award winner named, the celebrations truly began, with fairground rides whirring into life and the dance floor welcoming anyone with the energy to dance the night way. Following a much-needed midnight breakfast, the evening drew to a close and guests made their way into the night to continue their celebrations. Once again, the event proved a huge success.
Adam O’Connor, managing director of Rail Media, said: “The RailStaff Awards is a one-of-a-kind occasion, shining a light on the people in our industry who continually go above and beyond. It is inspiring and humbling to organise this event, and it’s a privilege to see the positive impact it has on our remarkable workforce. Every winner and highly commended individual deserves real recognition, as do all the finalists and nominees.
My sincere thanks go to our sponsors and supporters, whose backing makes this special evening possible. I’d like to thank our panel of judges and the entire Rail Media team for their outstanding work in bringing this memorable event together.”
Thank you
The RailStaff Awards depends on the support of many dedicated people and groups. We’re grateful to everyone who acknowledged their colleagues’ achievements and submitted nominations. Our thanks also go to the judges, to all who voted, and to everyone who joined us at the ceremony.
Special thanks go to our category sponsors: Alstom, BTTC, Carlisle Support Services, Freightliner Group, GeoAccess, GTR, HALOS, Body Cameras, Henderson & Taylor, Hitachi, LNER, Readypower, ResponSec Ltd, Transport Benevolent Fund CIO, Telent, and Train’d Up.
And our gold sponsors: Amulet and Vertiv.
The winners of the 2025 RailStaff Awards are:
Apprentice of the Year Award
Winner: Rohan Mannion, Hitachi Rail
Highly commended: Keelie Hall, LNER and Mia Sandham, AtkinsRéalis
Graduate of the Year Award
Winner: Yasha Siddiqui, Alstom
Highly commended: Hana Muddasir, Heathrow Express and Oliver Ensor, Network Rail
HR & Recruitment Team or Person Award
Winner: Deborah Birch, Hull Trains
Highly commended: Capability and Skills Development Team, Network Rail and Lindsay Gauntlett, Lumo
Milton Keynes, 9 October, 2025 – Snap-on Industrial held its third annual INSIGHT event at the Red Bull Technology Campus, an opportunity for the world-leading productivity solutions company to connect with its customers and preview new products that have been developed in direct response to feedback gathered at previous Insight events.
Snap-on Industrial has been in partnership with Red Bull Powertrains for the last four years, making the prestigious MK-7 event space a natural choice for this day-long event. Invited guests from the military, rail, aviation, and energy industries came together to take part in interactive product demonstrations, tour the Red Bull factory, and hear from their cross-industry peers during two in-depth panel discussions.
Celebrating its 105th anniversary this year, Snap-on Industrial has earned a reputation for relentless innovation. The company now has more than 4,300 live patents and is passionate about forging close relationships with its customers, gathering valuable insights from these interactions so it can continue to create new tools and industrial solutions that meet the needs of engineers today and tomorrow.
Richard Packham, Director – UK & Europe for Snap-on Industrial, said:“Now in its third year, our annual INSIGHT Event has become a highlight of our calendar, providing a unique opportunity to spend time with our customers, showcase our current and upcoming product range, and gather feedback that will shape our products and solutions as we move forward. There’s nothing more rewarding than being able to share our new prototypes with the people who inspired their creation; several of the products being previewed today have been developed on the back of questions and comments we received at last year’s event.”
Torque Control
Launched on 1st October 2025, the Control Tech+™ Electronic Torque Wrenches represent the next generation of digital torque wrenches. Reflecting the shift towards digital being seen across the torque industry, Snap-on Industrial’s expanded product range means there’s now a solution for every client, no matter their scope or scale.
Engineered with the aerospace and natural resources industries in mind, the Control Tech+™ Electronic Torque Wrenches are Bluetooth enabled for easy monitoring and reporting; runs on rechargeable batteries; and has earned an IP64 rating thanks to being virtually waterproof as well as dust and gas resistant.
Power Tools
Making their debut at INSIGHT 2025, two power tool prototypes and two new drills were previewed at the event, with guests encouraged to get hands-on and try the new technology for themselves.
The industrial drill has been crafted based on customer feedback. It is robust; is designed so that engineers can reduce repetitive strain injuries by keeping their wrist and arm in-line; and can achieve speeds of up to 6000 rpm. Accuracy is enhanced by limiting the drill to 10% speed at start while the higher rpm available means users can work more efficiently, drilling more holes per battery charge.
The upgraded 14V angle or collet drill is ideal for use in tight spaces, especially for those working in aviation, thanks to the flexible angles that can be achieved. It can now also reach higher speeds, be adapted with interchangeable heads, and has a larger battery size that takes just one hour to fully charge.
Early prototypes still in development included a new rivet shaver and temporary fastener tool. Both were tested by the guests and the feedback provided will shape their continued development ahead of next year’s event.
Hand Tools
Ever since Snap-on Industrial pioneered the idea of taking five handles of different configurations and ten sockets of varying dimensions and fashioning them to “Snap-on” to one another interchangeably, it has been known for its inventive and practical approach to hand tool development.
Intelligently designed to be in tune with an engineer’s instincts, each tool has a distinctive ridging to improve grip, provide a consistent user experience, and limit the amount of force required. Its pliers are the perfect example with a serration talon grip that offers 57% more pulling power when clamping compared to its closest competitors.
Snap-on Level 5 Tool Control
Empowering organisations to have complete visibility of their tool inventory, Automated Tool Control, a subset of the Level5 program of Tool Control, has empowered organisations to have complete visibility of their tool inventory for the past 15 years. Subject to continuous development and improvements, this dynamic system allows users to unlock the power of data and move at the speed of work.
The L5 Connect customisable software is secure, intuitive, and built to address everyday issues, using cameras, RFID tags, and barcodes to track when tools are removed and returned and when they require repair or calibration.
These insights flow into downloadable reports that can help organisations ensure their tool inventory is fit for purpose, have a full audit trail of each tool if they go missing or are damaged, and restrict access to authorised users.
L5 Connect is compatible with the Level5 Tool Control series; ATC Box, ATC Locker, ATC Portal, and the ATC FlexHub, an asset management storage solution for items in varied sizes developed based on feedback received at the first INSIGHT event in 2023.
Passenger expectations are no longer limited to punctuality or performance. Increasingly, it’s about experience. From airport-style lounges to onboard catering, the rail industry is evolving in an attempt to match the comfort levels found in air travel, and business class seating is leading the charge.
This shift has meant re-imagining the way comfort is engineered. One area of focus is the seat adjustment mechanism in its business class cabins, where space is limited but expectations are high. It’s an area where linear motion specialist Rollon is bringing its aerospace-inspired design thinking to the railway industry.
Engineering comfort in compact spaces
Designing a reclining seat for a high-speed train isn’t just about luxury – it’s a feat of engineering. One operator behind Italy’s high-speed trains required a seat that could deliver smooth and reliable reclining motion, withstand substantial dynamic loads, and fit into the tight under-seat envelope typical of modern rolling stock.
Working with a supplier of rail seating systems, Rollon delivered two ASN35-210 telescopic guides for each seat.
“Mounted flat beneath the seating structure, these guides form the backbone of the reclining mechanism, providing the rigidity and motion quality required to meet engineering specifications, safety standards, and passenger expectations within business class,” said Antoine Salomon, Key Account Manager at Rollon.
“These semi-telescopic rails deliver the strength and rigidity needed for dynamic passenger loads, drawing on Rollon’s aerospace experience to elevate comfort in premium rail interiors.”
Designed for demanding loads
Antoine Salomon
Unlike static seat designs, the reclining mechanism needed to withstand up to 150 kg in dynamic load – this weight had to represent not just a seated passenger, but occasional overloads, such as someone standing on the edge of the seat to access luggage.
To perform under these conditions, Rollon’s ASN35-210 telescopic guides were selected for their ability to combine compact design with high structural stiffness and no deflection under strain. The guides provide a 50–60% stroke extension, allowing the seat to gently recline into a more relaxed position via an electric actuator.
“We applied the same design logic we use in aerospace applications,” Salomon added. “You’re dealing with high loads in a small space, with strict expectations for performance and comfort. We had to deliver a mechanism that feels premium and performs predictably every time.”
From aircraft to rail: Cross-sector innovation
The technology Rollon supplied is not adapted from aerospace – it’s a direct evolution of it. In aviation seating, premium economy and business class recliners require mechanisms that are ultra-thin, silent, and resistant to fatigue. The ASN rail system is built with these same demands in mind, and its flat-mount orientation makes it ideally suited for the floor constraints of a high-speed train.
“In aerospace, we’ve had to meet challenges for weight, noise, and space restrictions for years,” said Salomon. “Those learnings transferred perfectly into this rail application, especially now that train interiors are becoming more sophisticated.”
With electrification built in from the start, the seats now offer motorised adjustment at the push of a button, which is increasingly becoming a standard expectation among business-class rail passengers.
What makes this project particularly noteworthy is how it captures a broader trend across the rail sector: the premiumisation of passenger interiors. As operators across UK and Europe compete not only with one another but with airlines for short-haul travellers, comfort and perceived quality are fast becoming differentiators.
“We’re seeing a lot more interest in these types of systems,” noted Salomon. “Train manufacturers are visiting aerospace expos, looking at seat and cabin technology, and asking how they can bring that into rail. The lines between sectors are blurring, and passengers are benefitting.”
This trend isn’t limited to high-speed or intercity routes, either. Regional and commuter rail networks are also upgrading their interiors, particularly as hybrid working has shifted what passengers expect from their time in transit.
What sets the system apart, however, isn’t just how it performs on paper -it’s how it feels in service. Passengers don’t need to know they’re sitting on a rail that’s been engineered to withstand aviation-grade load testing. What they do notice is the smoothness of the movement and the lack of uncomfortable vibration.
Adaptable, scalable and future-proof
While this business class application is a premium showcase, Rollon’s solution is modular and adaptable to a range of train classes and use cases. Rollon’s linear and telescopic guide systems can be tailored for:
Customisation options include adjusted stroke lengths, anti-corrosion surface treatments for humid or maritime climates, and even lightweight machining for weight-sensitive rail designs.
Rollon also offers options to align with regional or operator-specific compliance standards, supporting seamless integration into diverse rolling stock platforms.
For Rollon, this project is not only a successful application. It’s a proof point. With increasing demand for refined motion solutions in rail interiors, the company sees significant opportunity in helping operators differentiate through design.
“This kind of application is becoming more popular because operators are under pressure to create better travel experiences,” said Salomon. “Our role is to make that easy – to bring proven technology, adapt it to the rail environment, and support our customers through the full development cycle.”
A very impressive international event focusing on level crossing safety took place in June at the National Railway Museum in York, England. This was the 17th International Level Crossing Awareness Day (ILCAD).
A remarkable 220 dedicated passionate level crossing experts met from 22 countries, including Japan, Argentina, Canada, USA, plus many European nations. The attendees included road and rail safety professionals, national safety authorities, behavioural scientists, academics, insurance experts, and railway safety equipment manufacturers – all with the common aim of improving road and rail level safety.
ILCAD is the International Union of Railways’ (UIC) awareness campaign day for level crossing safety. Since it was instigated in 2009, the campaign has been supported by railway communities from around the world. Each year, a partner country hosts ILCAD and participants share good practice and projects to increase level crossing safety and contribute to lowering the risk and the number of incidents and casualties.
To illustrate the international scope of ILCAD, during the last 17 years it has been held in countries including France, Turkey, Latvia, Canada, USA, Poland, and Argentina. This year, with 2025 being the 200th anniversary of the very first passenger railway in the world, ILCAD was held in Great Britain. The event in York was jointly hosted by Network Rail and the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB), the day after TRESPAD, the UIC safety campaign on trespass prevention.
The presentations were held in the railway museum in front of a number of train exhibits, including LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard. On 3 July 1938, Mallard broke the world speed record for steam locomotives at 126mph (203km/h), which still stands today – a reminder that trains have always been fast and they can’t stop quickly for anyone on a level crossing.
Allan Spence, chair of the Global Level Crossing Network, and Isabelle Fonverne, senior advisor for safety at the UIC opened the day. The emphasis on ILCAD 2025 was ‘Helping people make good decisions’ with the slogan ‘Safe decisions – every time’. According to UIC estimates, there are more than half a million level crossings in the world, with approximately 40% in the USA and 20% in the EU plus Great Britain. In the USA alone it was reported that there is a level crossing incident every three hours and, in 2023, 33 countries reported an average of 10 casualties per week at level crossings.
During the day in York, the audience received excellent and insightful presentations covering topics such as ergonomics, risk assessment, technical solutions, education, public awareness, and cross-sector collaboration to improve level crossing safety.
Great Britain
Network Rail’s Richard Bye presented ‘Decisions, Decisions, Decisions’ which focused on human factors. The risk at level crossings has reduced due to technology, signage, and awareness campaigns. However, unsafe and non-compliant actions continue. Understanding human behaviour at and near to level crossings is therefore a key component in accident prevention. Richard explained the need for a human-centred risk-based approach to the management of level crossing safety, and he covered how people make decisions when using level crossings.
Greg Morse of RSSB covered ‘Learning from (level crossing) history in Great Britain’. In this powerful presentation Greg explained the development of railway signalling and operation, and how it has improved following incidents. He also covered why things went wrong at a number of level crossing incidents. While explaining a tragic incident involving the loss of young lives at a level crossing, Greg did not refer to this incident by the name of the crossing, as many others had, but he used the names of the people involved. This brought home the importance of ICLAD and that improving level crossing safety is not just about numbers and targets, and also that every level crossing incident can have a devastating impact on families and everyone involved.
Daniel Fisk and Neil Huston from Network Rail explained the role of the Network Rail level crossing managers. Level crossings are inspected by the managers at a frequency based on the level of risk of the crossing. This inspection frequency typically ranges from every seven weeks to every 12 months. During the inspections, the level crossing managers check for any defects at the crossing that may pose a risk to users, trains, or vehicles. Where faults or defects are minimal (vegetation or sign cleaning) they may be resolved by the managers themselves immediately, or they will raise the defects for repair by the maintenance teams. The level crossing managers act as ‘owner’ of the crossings, undertaking risk assessments, and liaise and communicate with local users of the crossings, such as schools.
The view of level crossing risk from an insurance perspective was covered by Craig McLaughlin and Phil Strickland from Royal & SunAlliance Ltd, who questioned why level crossing barriers are painted the colours they are? Is there any correlation between incidents and crossing signage? Is there a correlation between incidents and types of crossings? Emergency services tend to use blue and red lights, so why are different colours used at a level crossings? And finally, why do people risk their lives?
France
Elise Grison of Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) also covered the importance of human factors with level crossings, as she explained a French collaborative project involving cognitive science and engineering. Pedestrian Tracks Crossings (PTCs) are installed in around 900 locations in France. Six hundred of these are equipped with red flashing pictograms to warn users that a train is coming, which is activated when a train is approaching. Incidents still happen though, and the main reason is behavioural, with 50% occurring where the situation / information has not been understood or taken into account with the safety system misinterpreted, or users feel that trains will come to a stop in time. The other 50% are where the safety instructions have not been seen or passengers did not pay attention.
A team of industrial partners and academics are developing a new PTC to address these issues. A cognitive approach is being used to develop a model of human behaviour at PTCs, based on a scientific method. This is developing new behavioural indicators for the evaluation of safety systems, and to understand and characterise the impact of risk factors on behaviours. The project is to integrate behaviour to help decision makers in the selection of the right technology.
The objectives of the project are to understand human behaviour (cognition and biomechanics) when using a PTC. To develop and test new safety systems inspired by human understanding and objectively measure their ability to reduce risky behaviours and the number of incidents. The project started in January 2023 and is planned to complete mid-2026.
Portugal
José Tomé (pictured left), coordinator for risk reduction at level crossings at Infraestruturas de Portugal (IP Portugal) discussed ‘Pillars and strategic objectives of the IP Plan (2024-2030) to reduce incidents at level crossings’. He explained that there had been a large reduction in level crossing incidents in Portugal over the years, due to improvements such as crossing closures and new technology, but that the improvement in safety had “flatlined” and had slightly increased over the last year, so more needs to be done.
The Euro 316M plan to improve level crossing safety includes further crossing closures with prioritisation based on risks – including, speed, traffic type, number of lines, and involving local authorities. Technical upgrades will include equipping all level crossings with active protection and to introduce measures to deter ‘risky’ behaviour. The awareness of level crossing risk will include introducing the topic in schools, investing in driver training, and the launch of Campaign Pare, Escute, Ole (Stop, Listen, Look). Enforcement will include technological solutions to detect infringements, along with involving police forces to punish infringements. A specific emergency phone number for each level crossing will also be provided that will automatically identify the location of the crossing when used.
United States
Starr Kidda and Francesco Bedini Jacobini (pictured below) of the Federal Railroad Administration shared insights on level crossings in the US. The country’s rail network is huge with 225,000 route kilometres of track and 203,859 ‘at-grade’ railroad crossings. Active level crossings with gates, bells, and/or flashing lights make up 47% of all crossings, and the other 43% are passive level crossings equipped with signs and markings but no active warning devices. Over the last 40 years the number of level crossings in the US has reduced and more level crossings have been made active, however over the last 10 years the number of casualties at level crossings has remained broadly the same. Starr and Francesca explained the extensive measures underway titled ‘Helping People Make Good Decisions’ and the Community-Based Rail Safety Improvements across the US.
These are focused on the CARE Model:
Community: Engage stakeholders
Analysis: Identify and analyse data
Response: Determine responses that address the challenges
Evaluation: Track the effectiveness of solutions
They also explained a number of initiatives underway. One is an Enhanced Emergency Notification System (ENS) sign at level crossings so that the railway company can be notified of any level crossing incident. An incident which may have benefited from this initiative was when a light aircraft had come down on a level crossing. While the public had called the emergency services, nobody had told the railway company and a train approaching the crossing was not halted.
Another US level crossing initiative is the use of LiDAR technology for the risk assessment and identification of high-profile grade crossings. Much survey work has been completed, and the next steps will involve a new web portal with 3D scans and parameters of crossings including vertical profile, angles, and sight distances, which will lead to a new design standard.
Rachel Maleh & Wende Corcoran OF Operation Lifesaver Inc. (OLI) gave a powerful presentation focusing on its strategies for public engagement and awareness at level crossings. OLI is a nonprofit organisation and recognised leader of rail safety education in the US. Since 1972 it has been committed to preventing collisions, injuries, and fatalities on and around railways and level crossings, with the support of public education programmes across the US.
OLI’s priority is to educate people on how to be safe around railway level crossings, and its impressive Public Service Announcements (PSAs) and promotional resources have been created to increase visibility and awareness about rail safety.
Italy
Andrea Biava and Francesco Centola of Italy’s National Agency for the Safety of Railways and Road and Motorway Infrastructures (ANSFISA) reported on its national level crossing inspection campaigns. They opened their presentation with a comparison between level crossing risk in Italy and other countries. In the EU there are 50 deaths involving level crossings per 100 million inhabitants, with eight deaths per 100 million inhabitants in Italy and, for example, one death per 100 million inhabitants in the UK. However, road transport is even more hazardous, and they explained ANSFISA’s comprehensive on-site inspection campaign on 80 level crossings involving both national and regional railway networks.
The campaign involves gathering and analysing data on railway incidents at level crossings, and the implementation and use of checklists to verify the actions of the infrastructure manager, measurement of functional parameters, onboard cab visits, and document checks. The inspections of roads involves travelling the routes near to the level crossings to check maintenance and other safety-related aspects.
Belgium
Annelies De Keyser & Vincent Godeau of Infrabel covered its emergency number campaign and new outreach approach in Belgian ports. They explained that every three years a survey of 1,000 Belgians aged over 16 is undertaken to assess their behaviour at level crossings. The latest survey made a disturbing conclusion. Forty-eight percent said they would walk across a railway track because it is shorter (saving time) or that they believe it’s not dangerous. Forty-one percent said they would cross a closed level crossing because they are distracted or mistaken, or because they believe it’s not dangerous. This and other data very much supports the need for action to reduce level crossing risk in Belgium and this will involve prevention, awareness, and enforcement.
One initiative is to introduce a new national emergency number. This allows road users to directly call the Infrabel control centre in the event of a dangerous situation at a level crossing. The new number is 1711, as Belgium has several emergency numbers all starting with 17. A comprehensive public awareness campaign has been launched, which has included a new sticker with the emergency number for all level crossings. From mid-October 2024 to mid-January 2025, Infrabel says that 27 potential collisions with trains were avoided, and 15 of the 1711 calls required the stopping of trains via a GSM-R emergency call. The reasons included a vehicle failing on a crossing, a suicide attempt, a road accident, trespassing, and a damaged level crossing where the barrier was hit by a car.
Each year there are several incidents in Belgium ports, resulting in damage and sometimes serious injuries. This is because ports are areas with many level crossings without barriers or lights and are used by drivers who are not familiar with Belgian level crossings. Red lights can also be ignored due to long waiting times or time pressure.
To improve safety, an awareness campaign in port areas is underway. The objective is to inform road drivers and raise the awareness of the safety rules at level crossings, as well as the risks, and the new emergency number 1711. The campaign includes providing coffee or smoothies for drivers at ports with a leaflet, a social media campaign, advertisements in fuel stations, and communicating with stakeholders such as transport and port companies.
Estonia
Tamo Vahemets from Operation Lifesaver Estonia shared insights on on its objectives as well as impactful public safety campaigns in his country. This is to increase people’s awareness of the possible dangers associated with railways, reduce the number of collisions taking place, on railways, and to reduce the number of victims and injuries on the railways. Tamo explained Estonia’s education and prevention activities, which included powerful 360-degree virtual video safety tours, interactive rail safety games, and campaigns such as ‘Let The Train Pass’, ‘Get Off The Bike’, and ‘You Are Expected Home For Christmas’.
An outstanding event
At the end of a remarkable day Allan Spence and Isabelle Fonverne thanked everyone for attending, in particular the sponsors which made the day possible including: IDS, Schweizer Electronic, Wavetrain, Kite Projects, Capgemini, Arentis, Hirsch, Alstom Group, Gmundener Fertigteile-Bodan, Altpro, and Zöllner GmbH.
Co-organisers – UIC, Network Rail, and RSSB – were also very grateful to the National Railway Museum for providing a superb venue, and said a special highlight was the opportunity to connect with British Scouts and the Samaritans, who were present at ILCAD with stands. Both work closely with Network Rail to deliver vital rail safety messaging to the public in Great Britain.
As we celebrate Railway 200, we consider what the future holds for Britain’s railways. In doing so we imagine two quite different possibilities.
One possible future envisages intolerable road congestion and increasingly common extreme climate events, that will make it politically acceptable to tax HGVs, motorists, and flights to encourage model shift to rail. With a strong cross-party consensus that rail investment generates significant economic returns, a huge programme of railway investment drives a significant economic upturn.
As a result, by 2125 the original HS2 ‘Y’ network, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and other new lines will have been built. In addition, all main lines and key freight lines have been electrified and signalled by ETCS. Investment in light rail and local bus networks, together with seamless through ticketing, will offer easy door-to-door journeys. As a result, passenger and freight rail traffic volumes are three times those of 2025 and rail accounts for 25% of all passenger and freight traffic. This modal shift to net-zero electric trains will also significantly reduce UK transport carbon emissions.
A quite different future is envisaged by a respected engineer who told me that in 100 years’ time railways will be footpaths as rising costs will have driven them out of business. Though it is difficult to accept this extreme scenario, the railway’s cost to the taxpayer is currently over four times more than at privatisation in 1994 and rising project costs have curtailed HS2 and railway electrification. As an example, readers are invited to estimate the cost of the deliverables of the 2010 A2B project and compare this with its £520 million cost at today’s prices.
In this future, high costs reduce the Government’s appetite for rail investment. Hence, by 2125, there will have been few, if any, significant new enhancement projects, very little new electrification, and the digital signalling programme will have stalled. The rise in rail passenger and freight traffic peaked around 2050 as no more trains could be accommodated on the network. Hence by 2125, rail traffic will then have fallen to 5% of all passenger and freight traffic.
Though these alternative futures are two extremes, they illustrate the point that railways have the potential to transform the UK economy, just as they did in the past. Yet the extent to which they can do so depends on government investment which, in turn, depends on whether the industry can deliver affordable projects.
These visions of the future do not mention innovations. Modern technologies such as AI and improved data management will no doubt improve efficiency and customer experience. However, for the past 200 years the railways have been engineered to be the most efficient form of transport for large volumes of traffic in respect of energy use, capacity, and land take. This will always be the case as these inherent benefits derive from the laws of physics which will not change in the future.
For this reason, these benefits should be better promoted. It was, for example, disappointing that there was no explanation of why railways are so efficient in the otherwise excellent Railway 200 inspiration train. Alstom’s greatest gathering was literally a huge celebration of the railways’ 200th year. As we report, its many rail vehicles showed how rolling stock had developed over the years as well as showcasing modern railway technology.
As part of our signalling focus in this issue, we have a Railway 200 feature in which Paul Darlington considers developments in signalling since 1900. We report on the groundbreaking introduction of Signalling Solid State Interlocking (SSI) 40 years ago, while Clive Kessell describes the first use of Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB), also introduced 40 years ago.
Level crossings are a challenge for signalling engineers as shown our report on the 17th International Level Crossing Awareness Day. A common theme of the need to take account of human behaviour was shared by representatives from Japan, Argentina, Canada, USA, and many European countries.
The signalling system is now being used to eliminate the historic (and risky) practice of using detonators to protect possessions. Our feature describes this and other current track safety improvements such as geolocation that will both improve track safety and deliver productivity benefits.
ETCS cab signalling also brings safety and productivity benefits. In a comprehensive feature, David Fenner describes why it is such a disruptive technology with initial high costs. He explains why, though its capacity benefits are small, ETCS will eventually offer significant benefits. In another feature, Malcom Dobell explains how ETCS does not yet take account of differential speed limits, axle-load-related speed restrictions, and the braking characteristics of different locomotive-hauled train formations.
Although the railways’ civil engineering dates back to its origins, very few operational assets are that old. One is described by Bob Wright in his feature about the recently completed renovations of the railway swing bridge over the River Ouse at Goole which is powered by 157-year old hydraulic machinery. This required reverse engineering and Historic England’s agreement for changes to the original machinery. We also report on the major work to replace the 67-year-old bridge over the railway at Greek Street in Stockport.
We have three reports on the activities of the IMechE’s Railway Division which does much to support young engineers. To date, over 1,200 young engineers have benefited from the experience they gain from competing in the Railway Challenge. Our report on the 13th challenge shows it always offers something new. We also report on the Division’s action-packed technical tour to Netherlands, Germany, and France on which around 20 young engineers learnt much about railway engineering in Europe.
Engineering good connections is the title of the Railway Division’s Chair’s address. This year’s chair, Rebeka Sellick, used the word ‘connections’ in various different contexts: the need to link different parts of the railway system; better communications between different parts of the railway; and providing passengers with connected journeys. She also urged engineers to connect with decision makers to convince them of what the railway offers.
As part of our Sustainability and Environment focus we report on the Railway Industry Association (RIA) Environment and Sustainability Group as well as managing earthworks and drainage monitoring. The common theme of these articles is taking effective action to address climate change which is now a reality.
Finally, as Andrew Haines retires from his post of Network Rail’s CEO after seven years, Rail Engineer would like acknowledge his contribution to the industry. Among many other things he has made Network Rail a more customer-facing organisation and paved the way for rail reform. I remember Andrew for his honest, off-the-record press briefings which provided invaluable background information. We wish him well in his retirement.
Signal being removed from ETCS signalling Northern City Line
In recent times £4 billion has been invested in rolling stock and infrastructure on the East Coast Main Line (ECML). Infrastructure works have included power supply upgrades, the remodelling of Kings Cross station, and the dive-under at Werrington. Though these are impressive infrastructure projects, their benefits cannot be fully realised until the ECML has a timetable that makes best use of the capacity created by these projects.
Production of the new ECML timetable that is to be implemented in December was a complex task not least because there are not enough train paths to satisfy the demand of passenger and freight operators. Furthermore, the impact on train performance has to be considered. If all available train paths are used, minor delays will result in widespread disproportionate knock-on effects.
It has taken five years to develop this timetable which required the reconciliation of stakeholder aspirations and extensive modelling. Network Rail advised the largest ever form simulation model ever done in industry, as well as the use of signalling system simulators. This modelling predicts a 1.9% reduction in train performance which is considered acceptable given the extra capacity created. Lessons from the disastrous 2018 timetable introduction have also been addressed including a phased introduction, contingency plans, and detailed resource planning (driver diagrams, rolling stock allocation).
The new timetable will offer an extra 16,000 seats per week to generate extra revenue of £60 million per annum. It offers a 33% increase in train paths for long-distance high-speed services between London and Doncaster with a 20% increase between Doncaster and Newcastle. There will also be faster journey times between London and Edinburgh. The number of LNER trains from Kings Cross increases from five to six per hour.
As well as improved ECML fast services, there is to be a new Northern Train fast service between Leeds and Sheffield, extra Govia Thameslink suburban services, and an hourly East Midland Trains Lincoln to Nottingham service. There is to be a phased introduction of some of the new service. This makes the timetable introduction more manageable and also defers some new CrossCountry services until after a TransPennine Route Upgrade blockade.
One way of ensuring capacity is the shortening of the Leeds locomotive-hauled services from nine to seven coaches to give them the same performance characteristic of the Azuma trains. The resultant loss of seats on this service is addressed by other trains providing an improve service between London and stations south of Doncaster served by the Leeds trains.
Although the timetable offers significant improvements, some stakeholder aspirations have not been met. In particular there has been no increase in freight paths. At the press briefing for the new timetable, it was stated that “we will struggle for additional capacity between 06:00 and 22:00” and that “additional access rights will be considered carefully due to performance constraints.” It would seem, then, that the new ECML timetable offers little, if any, scope for additional train paths and is, in effect, full up.
Thus, a further significant timetable enhancement will require infrastructure work to improve capacity particularly on the two-track ECML sections. While Network Rail is undertaking capacity studies to determine the infrastructure enhancements required to release extra capacity, there is currently no funding for any such work.
At the press briefing it was clear that Network Rail’s view is that the first step for us is to make this timetable a success, to prove to the government that its previous ECML investments are now generating revenue. Hence the success of this timetable is key to making the case for future investment.
In its 150-year history, it is unlikely that the 90-acre railway workshops at Derby Litchurch Lane have ever welcomed 40,000 people over a three-day period. This was the Greatest Gathering, not of people, but of over 140 rail vehicles and other railway attractions. This made it by far the largest event of Railway 200 which celebrates 200 years of the modern railway.
The event was perfectly described by Alstom Managing Director Rob Whyte who said: ”The Greatest Gathering is a once in a generation celebration of Britain’s railway heritage and future and it simply would not have been possible without the extraordinary support of so many. Together we’ve created the world’s largest gathering of historic and modern railway vehicles and a truly unforgettable experience for tens of thousands of visitors.”
Carriage and wagon works
The Litchurch Lane workshops have been producing railway vehicles for 150 years since opening in the mid-1870s, when the Midland Railway decided it needed a separate workshop to produce coaches and wagons of which it once produced respectively 10 and 200 per week.
The history of each workshop was detailed on interpretative panels produced by the Midland Railway Society (MRS). The QR code below shows some of the MRS’s history of the works which includes some fascinating information. For example, in Midland Railway days, the works timber stocks amounted to over 3,000 miles of timbers being seasoned.
In British Rail days, it was the main workshop producing Mark 1 coaches. In the early 1950s it produced lightweight diesel multiple units (DMUs). In 1970, the works became part of a newly created subsidiary, British Rail Engineering Limited (BREL). During the 1980s it produced the Pacer railbuses and, later, Mark 3 coaches.
BREL was privatised in 1989. At this time the works started to produce 180 of the aluminium-bodied Class 158 DMUs and 680 aluminium 1992 tube stock cars for the Underground Central line. BREL was acquired by ABB in 1992. In 1996 it became part of Adtranz which was taken over by Bombardier in 2001.
1863 Furness Railway locomotive No 20
After British Rail was privatised, the works produced over 500 vehicles of Class 170 Turbostar DMUs between 1997 and 2012, and over 2,700 vehicles of Electrostar EMUs between 1999 and 2017. The works also produced 1,403 vehicles of S7 and S8 stock cars and 376 Victoria line cars for London Transport between 2008 and 2017. Bombardier started developing Aventra EMUs in 2009 and, after obtaining an order from the Crossrail programme, started producing them in 2015. As the Aventras make greater use of digital technology a ‘Train Zero Delivery’ facility, as described later, was opened for the testing train systems in 2014.
Litchurch Lane is much more than an assembly plant. Since 2005, it has been the only UK facility able to design, build, engineer, and test trains. In 2021 it was announced that the works will be part of the production line for HS2 trains, probably from 2027 onwards. Yet in September 2023, Alstom warned that 1,400 jobs at Litchurch Lane and 900 jobs in its UK supply chain were at risk as the Aventra production was coming to an end. The company also confirmed that it was mothballing production facilities and restarting its redundancy programme.
Thus, when the last of more than 2,600 Aventra vehicles produced by the works was rolled out in March 2024, with no new train orders, the workshop’s production dropped from 13 to zero vehicles per week. Fortunately, in June 2024, Alstom was eventually given an order for a further 10 x 9-car Aventra trains for the Elizabeth Line. This was very much at the eleventh hour and as the local MP noted it required: “many meetings, letters and challenging private conversations with the Secretary of State.”
Thus, the works were reprieved from closure but faced a long pause in production. This required the works to diversify to undertake activities such as component overhaul. However, it also was recognised that this presented an opportunity to do something special. Thus, in September 2024, Alstom announced that it would host ‘The Greatest Gathering’ on 1-3 August 2025.
At the time, Alstom was confident it could make this claim as the gathering only needed to attract a few more than the 50 vehicles that were at the National Railway Museum’s 2012 Railfest. As it turned out, its gathering attracted almost three times this number.
Steam locomotives
There were over 20 steam locomotives, of which the oldest working locomotive was the 1863 0-4-0 Furness Railway No. 20. After becoming too small for the growth in rail traffic, it was sold to a steel works in 1870 where it remained until it was replaced by diesel traction in 1960. After a time in the grounds of a local primary school, it was purchased for preservation and returned to steam in 1998.
The locomotives on display included main-line express locomotives of the four pre-nationalisation railway companies. Only three of these used 4-6-2 ‘Pacific’ locomotives. The examples on display included a Bulleid-designed Merchant Navy class for the Southern, a Gresley-designed A4 class for the East Coast, and a Stanier-designed Princess class for the West Coast. The Collet 4-6-0 designed King class was the most powerful class of locomotive on the Great Western which did not use Pacific locomotives as its express locomotives needed a wide route availability for the branch lines on which they had to operate.
The Class 9F 2-10-0 heavy freight train locomotive, 92214, was amongst the last British Railways built steam locomotives. This was built by the Swindon Works in 1959 and had a short working life of six years. Like many steam locomotives that were later preserved, it was sent to Barry Scrapyard in South Wales after being withdrawn. After being purchased for preservation in 1980 it was finally returned to steam in 2011.
It is worth noting that the decision of Woodham Brothers to defer scrapping steam locomotives at its Barry scrapyards increased the number of preserved locomotives restored to steam by about 150.
Barry scrapyard in 1969.
The newest steam locomotive on display was ‘Tornado’, built in 2008 as a modern recreation of a 4-6-2 LNER Peppercorn ‘A1’ class. This locomotive is also pioneering the use of ETCS on a steam locomotive.
Although it is not possible to detail all the steam locomotives on display, it would be wrong not to mention the one built in Derby. This was 4-4-0 Midland Railway Compound built in 1902, designed by Johnson, and later developed by Deeley. Such compound engines were rare in the UK despite being designed to extract more power from steam. The Midland Compound did this by first expanding steam at a high pressure in a small cylinder inside the locomotive frame and then again at a lower pressure in two larger cylinders outside the frame.
Modern traction
Built at Derby in 1952, Class 08 diesel shunter 13000 was the first of 996 built, making them the most numerous class of UK diesel locomotives. Around 80 of these shunters are still in use today, of which three were on display. One of these, Class 08e 08308 has been converted to battery power.
In addition to seven shunters, no less than 57 main-line diesel locomotives of 29 different classes were on display. The oldest of these registered for main line use was the 1,000 hp Class 20 20007 built at English Electric’s Vulcan works in 1957. The different types of diesel locomotives from the late 1950s and 60s illustrated the wide range of classes produced as part of the 1955 BR modernisation programme, including those with hydraulic transmission.
Midland Railway CompoundLondon Underground’s Sarah Siddons. Photo credit: Malcom Dobell110 mph Class 87 locomotive.
Some of these 60-plus-year-old locomotives have been rescued from scrapyards and preserved. Others, 20007 and six of the seven Class 37 locomotives on display, have been in continuous use since they were built. The newest diesels on display were two 3,690hp Class 70 locomotives build by General Electric in the USA between 2009 and 2017.
There were 16 electric locomotives on display from 12 different classes. The oldest of these was London Underground’s Bo-Bo locomotive No 12 Sarah Siddons, which was built in 1922 and hauled trains on the Metropolitan line up to 1961. It is now maintained in operational condition for heritage tours.
There were five preserved Class 8x locomotives built between 1961 and 1973 for the West Coast Main Line electrification – 87002 was the last of these to be withdrawn in 2006 and is now used for charter work. The Class 91s built for the East Coast Main Line electrification were represented by 91101 ‘Flying Scotsman.’ This was one of 31 built at Crewe between 1988 and 1991. Only 12 now remain.
The newest, and most powerful electric locomotive on display was 99001, a Class 99 Co-Co bi-mode locomotive which is currently undergoing testing. When operating as an electric locomotive it has a power of 6,170 kW. When powered by diesel, its power is 1,790kW.
There was a line-up of high-speed traction comprising of a 300km/h Eurostar Class 373 power car and the 200km/hr UK trains: an Avanti Class 390 Pendolino, a Class 43 HST power car, and a Class 91 locomotive. There was also a 160km/hr Class 55 Deltic locomotive
One item of rolling stock recently built at Derby was the RGX-02 Rail Grinder which was built by Loram UK which has a depot close to Litchurch Lane offering modification, overhaul, and life-extension services.
High speed line up: L to R – 300 km/h Class 373; 200 km/h HST; 225 km/h (design speed) Class 390; Class 91 electric loco and Class 55 Deltic locomotive.
Multiple Units
There are only a small number of locomotive-hauled passenger trains on today’s railway. Multiple units are generally far more cost effective and offer other advantages, especially at terminal stations. On display were 27 different multiple units comprising of seven diesel units, a hydrogen powered unit, and 19 electric multiple units (EMUs).
Large-scale main line multiple unit operation started with the construction of the first diesel multiple units (DMUs), such as the Class 108 DMU on display. These were built as two, three, or four car units at Litchurch Lane between 1958 and 1961, the last of which was withdrawn from passenger service in 1993. The 333 Class 108 DMU vehicles were part of over 4,000 first generation DMU vehicles produced as part of the 1955 modernisation plan.
Though these first-generation units offered significant cost savings when they were introduced, by the 1980s it was clear there was a need for more reliable units that were cheaper to operate. This resulted in the development of second generation DMUs of which the first were the Class 150 introduced in 1984. On display was a Porterbrook example, number 150231 which was built at York in 1986. The newest DMU on display was a Class 197 assembled by CAF in Wales from 2022 onwards.
Of the 19 EMUs on display, seven collected DC current from a third rail. These included the oldest EMU on display – a preserved Class 423 VEP Southern DC unit built at York in 1967. Some consider these units to be ideal commuter units as they have slam-doors at each passenger bay which minimises passenger dwell times. However, this posed a significant safety risk as, at terminal stations, it was not uncommon for many passengers to open the doors and leave the train before it stopped.
The Class 313 units were the first to have both a third rail collector shoe and a 25kV AC pantograph. They were also the first production units derived from British Rail’s prototype suburban EMU design and so had sliding doors. When withdrawn in 2023 they were the oldest main-line units, having entered service in 1976.
Of the eleven 25kV EMUs on display, three were bi-mode units. Two of these were built by Stadler. The 2018-built Class 755 FLIRT has a short diesel-power car in the middle of the unit while the Class 398 is a tram-train unit that can be powered by batteries. The newest EMU on display was a five-car 25kV Class 730/2 Aventra unit built at Litchurch Lane in 2024.
‘Top and tailed’ ride offered by Prince and Trankil No 4.Open doors on a Class 423 VEP unit on Bluebell Railway.
Train rides
The numerous other attractions on offer included various train rides. These were:
A trip on a Class 345 Aventra (No 345055) on the works’ 1.4km test track.
A ride behind steam locomotive 45627 ‘Sierra Leone’ or diesel locomotive 37516 ‘Loch Laidon’ on another part of the works’ track network.
A cab ride in the tri-mode Class 93 locomotive 93009 which is currently under test.
A two-foot gauge line on which were offered rides on coaches that were ‘top and tailed’ by the world’s oldest operating narrow-gauge locomotive, the Ffestiniog Railway’s 1863-built Prince and Trankil No 4. Both of these locomotives were 0-4-0 saddle tanks. Trankil No 4 was built by Hunslet for a sugar mill in Java in 1971.
A 15-inch gauge track on which were offered rides behind the 1896-built 0-4-0 saddle tank ‘Katie’ from the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway.
The 10 ¼-inch gauge locomotives built by the University of Sheffield and a combined Alstom / University of Derby team for the IMechE’s Railway Challenge offered rides on coaches from the Stapleford Miniature Railway where the challenge is held.
Rides inside one of the workshops behind steam locomotives on a five-inch gauge line provided by the Derby Society of Model and Experimental Engineers.
Visitors also had the opportunity to ride on one of the fleet of 22 vintage buses which ferried visitors between the workshops and Derby railway station.
Other attractions included live music, street food stalls, family entertainment, and fairground rides. Inside the workshops were an impressive model railway display, a railway marketplace, a heritage and preservation zone, and a ‘meet the railway family’ area. This included organisations such as the Railway Industry Association (RIA) and Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (CIRO).
Train Zero Delivery.
The modern railway
Though a large part of the gathering celebrated the railway’s past, there was also much to see about the railway’s present and future. The STEM hub showed visitors the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) of the modern railway which hopefully inspired some visitors to become future railway engineers. This was hosted by Alstom’s graduates, engineers, and apprentices who demonstrated interactive exhibits such as virtual reality and driving simulators.
This also included an exhibition of the history of railway signalling from the first fixed signals in the late 1830s, telegraph signalling in 1850, block signalling in 1873, automatic train control in 1950, computer interlocking (SSI) in 1980, ETCS in 2000, to modular control systems such as Alstom’s MSC-I in 2024.
As its name suggests, the Train Zero Delivery (TZD) facility does not build trains. Instead, it is a software test site with static tests rigs of all types of Aventra units. These test rigs simulate the way the train’s software and hardware work together. This enables more thorough testing to be done than is practicable on a train. Hence, this is an essential part of the validation of the train’s design and any subsequent changes. Those visiting TZD could not fail to be amazed by the large volume of electronic equipment on a modern train, which is not obvious to passengers.
The gathering also provided an opportunity for a sneak preview of the emerging interior train design for the HS2 trains. These will be designated Class 895 and will be partially built at the Litchurch Lane works in a few years’ time as part of a joint venture between Alstom and Hitachi. Visitors were able to go inside full-scale wooden mock-ups of the saloon, catering, and bike and buggy spaces of these new trains.
It was explained that as the mock-ups were built to assess physical layouts they were in white, grey and black. At this stage the design team wished to avoid discussions about colour schemes. Visitors were also advised how these mock-ups had developed after extensive feedback from a wide range of user groups. Despite advances in virtual reality, it was felt that there was no substitute for a full-scale mock up to obtain worthwhile user feedback.
The 200-metre Class 895 units will have 504 seats and spaces for four wheelchairs, four bikes, and two children’s buggies. They will also offer more leg room. Despite this, the Class 895 will have 10% more seats per metre of train than the Avanti Pendolino trains. This will be achieved by placing almost all the train’s equipment below the coach. They will also offer level-boarding at HS2 stations and have a wider step to give an improved boarding at stations on the conventional network.
HS2’s trains will also have bio-reactor toilets that separate and treat waste on board which allows discharge to specialised station drains to extend toilet servicing from once every few days to once monthly.
Back to normal
Setting up the workshops for the gathering was no mean feat, though this was made possible by the two weeks beforehand being the works maintenance shutdown period. Although Alstom and its 350 volunteers deserve great credit for making this event happen, many other railway companies and organisations did a great deal to make it a success.
It is ironic that the gathering was only possible due the hiatus caused by the gap in train orders. For this reason, it is probably true to say that though Alstom is rightly proud to have hosted such a huge event, it doesn’t want to be in a position to do so again.
After the last visitors left, the job of getting the workshops back in business began. This was helped by half the workshop space being closed to the public during the gathering. It also required numerous train movements from the workshops which included trains with five diesel locomotives and four steam locomotives.
And so it was that, less than a day after hosting a once-in-a-generation celebration of the heritage and future of Britain’s railway, the Litchurch Lane workshops started producing its order for additional Elizabeth line trains. After seeing the scale and capability of this facility at the gathering, it is difficult to imagine that it would have closed had it not been for this order.
Electrification – it’s the subject on every rail professional’s mind and a key priority for the rail industry as it drives towards a greener, more sustainable future. But the pressure of tight possession windows, maintaining safety at height, the skills shortage, and the demand for continuous accuracy are significant challenges for any electrification programme.
Currently, the UK lags behind its European neighbours, with just 38% of its track electrified, compared to the continent’s average of 60%. More than ever, we need to simplify the traditionally complex processes – without compromising quality or safety. This is not just a nice-to-have; it’s a necessity to ensure the UK’s rail provision keeps pace with the rest of the world.
Network Rail has called upon companies to innovate to stay at the forefront of the challenge and Gripple, the Sheffield-based manufacturer, has responded with a range of fast, simple, and efficient OLE solutions. With overhead lines at the core of electrification, Gripple is determined to provide engineers with the solutions they need to unlock further rollout.
To gain insight on the impact Gripple is making in the rail sector, we spoke with Group Business Development Director Glenn Bills and Group Product Manager Paul Whittle about Gripple’s SwiftLine range – the industry’s key to achieving full rail electrification.
Making tracks
Having been around for more than 30 years, Gripple initially made its name as the original inventor of wire joiners and tensioners. The company has since expanded its product range across diverse sectors, including building services, agriculture, civil construction, landscaping, utilities, solar solutions, and more recently, the rail industry.
“Through the decades, Gripple’s guiding mission has been to create simple solutions that make a real difference – saving the installer time,” says Glenn. “It’s this commitment to problem-solving that propelled us into the rail sector. After many discussions with engineers and contractors, we were able to identify the industry’s struggles and address them with the launch of our inaugural rail product, SwiftLine Rail Dropper, back in 2023.”
Gripple’s SwiftLine Rail Dropper provides a fast, efficient alternative to traditional OLE droppers. Designed for quick and easy installation, its simple but secure quarter-turn catenary fixing and the auto torque contact wire clamp ensures the correct torque every time and best-in-class cable protection. It hangs vertically to connect the catenary and contact wires at regular intervals, ensuring uninterrupted conductivity.
But Gripple didn’t stop there. In 2024, it introduced the SwiftLine Rail Jumper, enabling OLE engineers to attach to the catenary and contact wire in seconds. Thanks to its tool-free auto torque clamps with V-spring fixings, it is significantly faster and easier to install than traditional parallel groove clamps – and built to be four times longer lasting.
“These solutions were created with the aim of removing complexities on site,” explains Paul. “The pre-assembled and adjustable nature means far more can be done within a possession window, all while reducing the time spent working at height and in the dark.”
The latest innovation
Launched this spring, the SwiftLine Forked Collar is the latest addition to the SwiftLine range.
Glenn outlines how things have worked until now: “Forked collars, used for terminating and connecting the ends of conductor wires on OLE, are typically hindered by complex installation processes. The lack of a universal design has made them susceptible to user error which can lead to increased safety risks and costly project delays.
“Until very recently, collars have relied on a cone-shaped gripping mechanism which doesn’t allow the wire to return once it has been pushed through. Even the most minute of mistakes can mean wasted materials and time – and starting again from scratch. That’s not a luxury most teams have, especially with tight possession windows where delays can run up fines in the tens of thousands.”
Paul warns: “Forked collars may be seen as a small component, but they bear a disproportionate amount of risk if it goes wrong. That’s why the SwiftLine Forked Collar is a game-changer. It means tool-free installation, universal cable compatibility, and, crucially, adjustability. So, if something isn’t quite right, it can be corrected easily, without being torn down and reinstalled.
Another handy feature is that inspection windows allow engineers to check installations from ground-level, and a no-weld design improves product durability in those more challenging rail environments. Plus, contractors can shorten project timeframes with faster installation, making them more competitive by reducing labour costs.”
The SwiftLine Forked Collar recently gained coveted Network Rail approval. “It’s the ultimate seal of approval, and this marks the third product in the SwiftLine range to receive such an endorsement,” beams Glenn.
But while this is a significant milestone for Gripple and a step forward for the industry, let’s take a look at the wider picture…
The SwiftLine range
Paul explains: “With the Forked Collar joining our existing SwiftLine Rail Dropper and SwiftLine Rail Jumper, we now offer a fully integrated suite of products providing OLE engineers with everything they need to simplify workflows, boost safety, save time and money, and meet the ultimate goal: accelerating rail electrification efforts.
“Gripple is proud to be the only manufacturer offering a complete, start-to-end solution for OLE installation,” adds Glenn. “While there’s no shortage of players in the industry, there has been a lack of cohesive solutions where all products work together seamlessly and are available from one trusted supplier – especially one who is UK-based, manufacturing all components in-house.”
Designed with OLE engineers in mind
“Each SwiftLine product has been meticulously designed in consultation with OLE engineers who are out in the field every day battling time pressures, tight budgets, and unpredictable weather conditions,” explains Paul.
“From speaking with engineers, project managers, and rail teams across the country, it’s clear there is a strong appetite for change – but only if that change makes things genuinely easier on site. They want and need straightforward answers to complex problems. “In a typical installation, engineers often juggle several tools, adjusters, and fixing systems that don’t always integrate smoothly. That means more time on site and more room for error. But the SwiftLine range offers engineers a cohesive system. This is what’s needed to deliver projects efficiently, safely, and to a high standard.”
“What sets our solutions apart are their universal compatibility and tool-free installation, ensuring streamlined installation on every project, every time,” shares Glenn. “Due to its ease of use, minimal training is required, so even when skills gaps and labour shortages arise, projects won’t need to come to a halt.”
Real-world impact
The SwiftLine range is already having a huge impact on electrification projects across the UK.
One such example is Busby Junction in Glasgow where the team faced a tight 72-hour possession window to replace droppers and adjust the catenary height. Using traditional methods, this would have been a complex, time-consuming process. Gripple’s SwiftLine Rail Dropper enabled the team to complete the installation quickly, even in cold and wet conditions, eliminating the need for cutting, crimping, or on site fixes.
Its pre-assembled, fully adjustable design meant the team could adapt the droppers to the as-built track position with ease. Furthermore, the quarter-turn catenary fixing and auto torque contact wire clamp ensured accuracy and consistency, eliminating installation errors. Alan Kennedy, head of engineering at SPL Powerlines, described SwiftLine Rail Dropper as a “real game-changer” in terms of ease of use and safety.
Similarly, while working alongside REL, which forms a part of the QTS Group, and Network Rail, Gripple supported the delivery of a successful structure repair in Tamworth. With tight deadlines to avoid train delays, the installation team didn’t get chance to take exact measurements of the droppers before the job. That’s where SwiftLine Rail Dropper really proved its worth as its adjustability made the installation quick and hassle-free.
Ross Dickson, OLE project manager at QTS Group, commented on the project: “Had we not had flexibility in the droppers, we would need to renew the droppers on the final shift, which ultimately could have ended in the first train being delayed.”
Sustainability in rail
“Beyond the more obvious benefits like safety and efficiency, our SwiftLine range supports long-term sustainability goals too,” remarks Paul. “The push for full electrification by 2050 goes hand-in-hand with the drive to reach net zero. That’s why all SwiftLine products are fully adjustable and reusable. They can be relocated and reinstalled without the need for new materials, helping reduce waste and costs while aligning with sustainability initiatives.
The industry’s future
“Gripple’s role goes beyond just manufacturing and supplying components,” Glenn notes. “It’s about being an active part of the rail evolution in the UK and globally. Our SwiftLine range can make a real difference in the industry; taking the time, cost, and stress out of OLE installation for the engineers out in the field.”
Paul concludes: “There’s still a lot of ground to cover to reach 2050 electrification targets. But, as the only supplier offering a fully integrated, Network Rail-approved system for OLE, we’re proud to support engineers in delivering their work faster, more safely, and with fewer unknowns, ultimately shaping the future of rail.”
Rail Engineer has devoted many column inches to ETCS but mostly about its cost and deployment issues. ETCS is much more than a signalling system as it requires information about train formation, loads, and other characteristics. Inevitably, for a new system, some of these requirements might conflict with current national practice. It has been suggested that national practice should be changed in order to deliver the benefits of the inter-operable system. However, this is easier said than done, and resolving these issues takes time and money which is one reason why the first installations might cost more than the production run.
Some of those issues discussed here, if not addressed, could hamper operation of some types of train and could lead to some classes of locomotive being prohibited altogether. Partly this is as a result of Great Britain’s flexibility in what vehicles it allows to run where and partly because important aspects of GB practice were not incorporated into the standards/specifications. The risk is that lowest common denominator default values could be used, leading to a significant reduction in network capacity compared with the current lineside signalled railway with its rules and signage.
Rail Engineer understands that a paper outlining the issues was presented to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) in early 2019. These are system issues that need to be captured in ETCS but cannot be resolved by signalling engineers alone. Network Rail and the ORR were asked for comment. Network Rail gave some useful feedback which is reproduced in full.
The issues are:
Braking values for various train formations.
Axle load categorisation for bridge loading.
Implementation of differential speed limits.
Cant deficiency rounding.
Cant deficiency refers to the difference between the actual cant (or superelevation) of the track and the ideal cant needed to balance the centrifugal force of a train traveling through a curve at a specific speed.
When a train travels faster than the speed for which the cant is designed, it experiences a cant deficiency, meaning the track is not tilted enough to counter the centrifugal force, leading to a lateral force pushing the train outwards.
Trains are designed and approved for particular maximum cant deficiency values, depending on their intended operation.
Braking values
ETCS onboard equipment needs to know the braking capability of each train. There are two means of entering braking data into the ETCS Driver Machine Interface (DMI). The first, Gamma, is a series of data generally applicable to fixed formation trains. The data is pre-loaded into the onboard equipment, and the driver selects (or the train could select automatically) based on the formation, e.g., four-car, eight-car. For GB application, Gamma is the proposed braking data format for multiple units (MU). However, for most existing GB MUs, the required Gamma data is not held on the industry database known as R2 and will need to be determined from design data/test train results. More recent MUs should have the Gamma value supplied by the manufacturer.
The other method is called Lambda. This is used to define braking capability for loco-hauled trains, both passenger and freight. The problem here is that the braking performance of GB domestic vehicles is not assessed against the UIC Leaflet 544-1: instead, Railway Group Standard GMRT2045 is used. As a result, R2 does not hold the ‘Brake Weight’ values required to determine the Lambda value. Even if R2 did hold the right information, TOPS (one of the oldest computer systems still in front line use) does not have the functionality to generate the correct Lambda value applicable to a particular train formation, for the driver to enter into the ETCS DMI.
Early proposals were to use a default Lambda value for all freight trains irrespective of actual formation/braking capability. This would inevitably slow the trains and consequently reduce the number of available paths.
Photo credit: istockphoto.com/clare lickman
Network Rail agreed with the above assessment and reported that:
“The sheer magnitude of variation outside of fixed formation MUs is something that ECDP and the wider community in the UK has recognised. Since the start of the decade the programme has been looking at this issue and the need for a robust and safe mechanism to input the data into the DMI and forms part of the Train Data Entry project.
“This is now well developed and will initially require a manual check of data, but progress is being made on using an app-based solution to provide the data to the driver. The use of a ‘Consisting app’ is already part of the freight scene in the UK and the mathematics to draw data from R2 to populate this activity is understood. R2 is not in all cases up to date, but for the vast majority of more modern wagons, this is an admin task from available data. For some older types, or those where no operational need pertains, a default value can be used. Similarly, for heritage operations there is not as much variety as in the freight space meaning a similar solution, possible a simplified version, will also be effective.
“This provision will enable optimisation of train performance and pathway allocation as ETCS rolls out across the network. ECDP as the pioneering programme recognises that until we have various OEM fitments, operating companies and train types in use on ECML, the full optimisation will not be possible. A key phase of development is that theoretically important calculations and standards are then optimised on the real railway to ensure that the full benefits of ETCS are delivered.”
Axle load categorisation
ETCS uses load categories as defined in EN15528 Railway applications – Line categories for managing the interface between load limits of vehicles and infrastructure. This does not map directly to the route availability (RA) categories used in GB. It is relatively straightforward to determine the EN 15528 load category for a train but is said to be a 20-year task to re-assess all structures (viaducts, bridges, culverts etc., on all lines, although it is understood that this task has started. Simplistic conversion can lead to permission to operate over tracks not currently permitted and vice versa.
GB has permission in the Infrastructure TSI (now NTSN) to continue using the RA method for assessment of compatibility for trains and infrastructure, but this permission was not included in the Command and Control System TSI. Thus all axle load related information used within ERTMS is categorised according to the EN15528 load categories and drivers are required to enter the EN15528 load category of the train during data entry.
As well as axle-load-related speed restrictions, the ERTMS route suitability function includes axle load as one of the factors against which route compatibility is assessed. This is again defined according to the EN15528 values. Therefore, until the infrastructure is re-assessed, this element of the ERTMS route suitability functionality will not be available for use in GB.
It is expected that a marginal additional cost would be incurred if structures are re-assessed to EN15528 as well as RA capability as part of the existing assessment schedules (hence the 20-year timeline). However, these assessment schedules are unlikely to match the ERTMS implementation schedule. There are potentially large cost, resource, and schedule implications if the structures have to be re-assessed outside the current scheduled structure assessments.
It should also be noted that the EN15528 method is not suited to some GB vehicle types, such as three-axle bogie locomotives (i.e., classes 37, 56, 60, 66, 69, 70, 92, and 99, and various heritage locomotives) whose capability could be dramatically reduced if the EN system is directly applied.
Network Rail reported that:
“The alignment of European categories to traditional UK Route Availability categories has been perceived as more difficult over recent times, but the strategy now being developed is to use the axle weight categories in the ETCS system as planned and link this data to RA categories. The trackside speed curves within the RBC will reflect the RA speed curves and therefore if the RA category is entered on the onboard system by the driver, then the appropriate RA speed curve in the RBC will be selected. There will then be a translation of RA to axle weight category available to the driver (lookup table initially and potentially input directly) so that each consist can have the appropriate RA curve.
“This minor adjustment is in development and would avoid a major change to bridge assessments and any loss of capability by various vehicle types.
Photo credit: istockphoto.com/teamjackson
“In the interim, traditional RT3973 forms [Advice to Train Crews – Conveyance of Exceptional Loads] will still be used for this as the development continues to automate parts of the process and provide the protection inbuilt in ETCS and will continue to be used for other operational purposes.”
For readers unfamiliar with the term RBC, this is the Radio Block Centre which is a trackside device for a particular section of track which holds infrastructure data such as trackside speed curves. It also communicates with interlocking and then uses all this information to issue trains with a movement authority via the GSM-R radio.
Rail Engineer understands that Network Rail’s statement above represents a transitional solution suitable for use on ECDP and potentially nationally, while a permanent solution is developed for national use. In addition, Network Rail is well aware of the potential conflict between the assessment method for EN15528 and its impact on use of three-axle bogie locomotives on certain structures and is developing a solution that will, at least, maintain current capacity.
Differential speed limits
Currently many lines have several differential speed limits. For example, parts of the West Coast Main Line fast tracks have three: 125mph for tilting trains fitted with Tilt Authorisation and Speed Supervision; 110mph for non-tilt multiple units capable of this speed; and 100mph for everything else. There are other examples applicable to certain types of train operating in certain places.
These categories are not catered for in ETCS so the default position would be for all trains to run at the lowest of the signed speeds at any location, with a significant reduction in capacity and adverse effects on journey times and rolling stock utilisation.
There have been proposals to deal with this issue. In summary, ETCS trackside would send a speed profile to the train which may consist of one or multiple speeds at any location. Where more than one speed is sent, each speed would be tagged effectively with the types of train that could use that speed. Each train type would have a set of data pre-programmed which the on-board uses to select the appropriate speed profiles which apply to it at any location, with the default value being the lowest if in doubt or in the absence of any other data. The ETCS system has limited criteria for differential speeds so some of the current GB flexibility cannot be included in this way.
ETCS does allow for the definition of different speeds depending on various train properties. This includes specified cant deficiency categories (see panel). However, the values defined for ETCS omit the GB values: 75mm (mainly freight; 90mm (some freight but mainly passenger); 110mm (passenger);185mm and 265mm (tilting trains). The default response would be to round down the cant deficiency value leading to a speed reduction of 2mph to 5mph, further impacting on journey time/capacity.
The alternative would be to move up to the next higher cant deficiency value. While some of the speed increases could probably be accommodated safely by vehicles, any speed increase at a specific location would require the gauge clearance for all vehicles to be checked which might identify gauge infringements or additional inspection requirements.
The speed reductions involved are quite small but could apply at many locations and the impact of these variations would need to be evaluated by modelling, but it’s just another factor that might slow trains.
Photo credit: istockphoto.com/teamjackson
Network Rail reported that:
“ECDP’s initial deployment for the training and migration phase will not include differential speed capability. This is being managed to avoid restrictive operational issues by Network Rail as an interim measure. From the first signals away area on ECDP (Biggleswade to Fletton), just a few years away, differential speeds for permanent speed restrictions, temporary speed restrictions, and emergency speed restrictions will be provided by an upgrade of the RBC capability.
“That functionality will then be retrofitted to the migration area from Welwyn to Hitchin in due course. As we look to deploy ETCS more widely, the key consideration during design for differential speeds will be in understanding the purpose of the restriction and matching the profile as closely as possible to one of the applicable ETCS categories and assessing the impact of any change from today’s working in so doing.”
Conclusion
It is good to see that ECDP recognises the issues and has ways of dealing with some of them, but it does highlight that the implementation of ETCS – fundamentally a speed signalling system compared with UK’s current route signalling approach – impacts on a lot more than is usually covered by signalling design. This is a business change programme that fundamentally affects how train drivers work.
In particular, freight train drivers have to enter data into the system, representing a risk of incorrect data entry. It is good to see that ECDP recognises this risk and acknowledges the need for “a robust and safe mechanism to input the data into the Driver Machine Interface (DMI)”.
As Network Rail acknowledges, there are still issues to resolve and no doubt Rail Engineer will return to this topic.
Photo credit: istockphoto.com/teamjackson
Lead image photo credit: istockphoto.com/kodachrome25
These days we are often encouraged to think disruptively. The phrase is used to suggest that if we change the way we do things we will get better products and processes, often at lower cost. Is moving to European Train Control System (ETCS) one such example?
Moving from a lineside signalling system to an in-cab control system is certainly a big change. It is potentially disruptive to several areas of railway operation and engineering and therefore needs to be approached carefully to ensure it is completed successfully. It also has the potential to bring several substantial benefits to the railway.
Constraints of lineside signals
There are three fundamental constraints arising from lineside signals.
The first is that signals are in fixed positions. Since all train drivers must have time to read the message a signal is giving and then control the train appropriately, the distance between signals must be adequate to manage the train with the longest braking distance. This generates a fundamental compromise on signalling scheme design on a mixed traffic railway.
The second is the need to understand the human factors issues that may influence a driver’s response to a signal. Because of the nature of a train, responding to a misunderstanding will occasionally come too late to prevent an incident or, in the worst case, an accident. Thus, it becomes critical to ensure the meaning of a particular signal is clearly understood so the right response occurs.
Signals are therefore placed in clearly visible locations, at approximately equal intervals, and on multiple track railways in parallel locations in an attempt to ensure the correct signal is read. There is also the constraint of how many different aspects a signal can display which is, to some extent, limited by colours that can be easily distinguished several hundred metres away. Indeed, most railways also have systems to ensure the driver has their attention drawn to an approaching signal, and sometimes speed limits. In Britain it is the Automatic Warning System (AWS) system.
Finally, because signalling equipment is distributed widely across the network, power and communications equipment need to be provided to enable the equipment to function. This adds both capital cost in its provision and ongoing service costs keeping it maintained and functional.
It can therefore be seen that while lineside railway signalling is fundamentally about allowing trains to move safely across the network, there are several constraining factors that add cost and deliver a sub-optimal result.
Some of these constraints, especially those related to human factors, could be ameliorated by the use of a comprehensive Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system. If, however, lineside signals are retained it becomes just another added element of the system with further failure risk and very limited benefit other than improved safety. Remember, train safety on the railway – at least in Britain – is already very good.
Cab signalling
Using cab signalling, where the train knows its own braking performance, removes the first compromise. The infrastructure now only needs to tell the train the location at which it must stop. The train then informs the driver when its speed reaches the braking zone and, should the driver fail to react, the ATP function cuts in and initiates the brake response. Thus, compromises on maximum speed and interval between signals are removed. So are the constraints around signal aspects meaning in a few places, especially converging junctions, a joining train can be allowed to start much sooner after another train has passed.
In addition, with cab signalling constantly advising the driver of the maximum safe speed for that train, the human factors issues associated with lineside signals are much reduced. That is not to say there are no new human factors challenges to be considered, but with the support of ATP many of them are of a very different form.
Because there is only a need to inform the train of the stopping location the amount of lineside equipment can be substantially reduced. On mainlines with frequent traffic, section lengths may not change very much because of the need to keep following trains moving. On less densely used lines the normal signal spacing could be changed to suit the headway requirements, or those required to meet operational recovery needs, and on rural routes only the essential stopping places need to have any equipment at all. This is especially true with axle counter-based train detection.
With that background let us discuss the challenges and opportunities in more detail.
Challenges
The first challenge is train fitment, closely followed by driver training.
To be able to remove lineside signals, every train permitted to run along the route in open traffic, i.e. not under possession, must be fitted. Many railway assets are long lived, and this especially applies to rolling stock. Until a cab signalling system becomes universal there will inevitably be vehicles that need retro-fitment.
This is a multi-dimensional problem:
Where will the equipment be fitted? Does that comply with all the system design criteria such as distance from the front end?
Can the drivers desk be modified such that the driver can see and use the new cab display in all likely lighting conditions?
The cab signalling system needs to know position and speed at any instance. Are suitable interfaces to tachometry systems available or can they be made available?
Where can the necessary radio communications equipment and antenna be mounted? (Although with all trains now required to have a radio this is a relatively small problem.)
How will the interface to the braking system for the ATP function be implemented?
What disturbance to existing equipment is likely to facilitate this installation?
Those are just the technical questions. What about the commercial concerns of a vehicle being out of service? How long? What post fitment testing is required? Will reliability be impacted?
It is hardly surprising that retro-fitment costs are extremely high. Unsurprisingly, the trend is to a first of class fitment model to iron out the fitment arrangement and prove a satisfactory result before rolling the fitment across similar vehicles. That may not be the end of the challenge because, as we know, vehicles of the same class are not necessarily identical especially if they have a few years life under their belt. But once cab signalling is the standard fitment at build, it is both a relatively marginal cost compared to a new locomotive, even more so for a multiple unit train, and will be in a competitive marketplace compared to retro-fitment which has a very limited market place for each type of vehicle.
At the top of the operating tree is driver training. This is a substantial change to a driver’s normal working environment. Instead of looking for signals they are now required to monitor a display in the cab and respond to the prompts it provides while still keeping a close eye on the outside world for conditions or events that are not reflected in the signalling system – trespassers and trees come to mind. But here we also need to factor in frequency of use. The training can only be done when a driver is likely to use the new skill, otherwise that skill will be degraded or even lost.
However, that is not the only operational change that is created. How do platform staff know the train is able to proceed and thus the doors need to be closed? There is no proceed signal at the end of the platform. Even deeper into the operating organisation, and with reference to the earlier comment, there will be a change to how operators decide the signalling scheme design they need. Does this require a new or at least changed skill set to define the real operating parameters for the line?
We can then move on to rolling stock engineers who will need to diagnose and fix any faults with new and complex equipment. But even before that happens, how do we define the brake performance of a train and what safety margins are we going to employ? Do we have suitable current data available, or do we need to reorganise our braking models? Our accompanying feature “ETCS Implementation issues” explains how a train’s braking curve is input into the ETCS system and the issues associated with doing that for freight and other locomotive-hauled trains.
No easy solution
This is a double-edged problem because we need to define both a service brake performance and an ‘emergency’ brake performance and, if the latter takes longer to stop the train than that of the service brake, it will dominate and cause both human factors and operational challenges. This is especially a challenge for mixed formation trains such as freight or charter traffic. It also challenges the definition of an emergency brake as the one with the shortest stopping distance is not necessarily the one that is ultimately most reliable.
The signal engineer also has some major changes to consider and resolve. Fundamentally much of the signalling becomes ensuring a safe route is properly set for each train and that there are no or extremely limited opportunities for another vehicle to make an incursion into that route. But they also need to ensure complete details about the topography of the route, especially gradients, and that permitted speeds on every section of the route for each class of train are captured and stored, ready for transmission to the train as part of the movement authority. There is also likely to be a need to relearn the optimal sectional layout to achieve the desired headway for the traffic proposed on that route.
We then come to the electrification engineer. He gets one major benefit in not being required to consider signal sighting when positioning OHL equipment. The compensation is much more discussion to ensure stopping locations do not end up with the train gapped (on third rail) or being too close to a neutral or isolating section on overhead line.
The other feature of early implementations of ETCS is the testing. The current testing regime is proving very disruptive to railway operation. Better testing regimes are possible but one needs to gain confidence they are secure and suitable. Perhaps the initial disruption is understandable given the implications for safe travel if something is wrong.
While this is only a partial list, it illustrates that moving to a cab signalling system such as ETCS can be disruptive and we need to understand these challenges early in any roll out of the system.
Benefits
Having highlighted some of the reasons why it is so challenging to get ETCS functional on the railway we do need to appreciate the opportunities it brings.
The first and major benefit is it releases signalling or train control system design from the constraints of colour light signals on posts beside the railway. There is no longer a need to place signals according to restrictive standards that are there to ensure drivers know exactly how to react to the aspect being displayed. Sections can be much shorter where this provides a benefit such as at converging junctions or on approach to stations where occasional trains stop such as Stevenage or Grantham. Similarly, on multi-track sections of line would there be benefit having different stopping points to suit the dominant traffic?
There is of course a significant cost saving in not providing the signal and associated support structure or a power feed and interface to the interlocking. The absence of much lineside equipment will simplify ongoing maintenance, and should significantly reduce the failure rate and speed up return to service because of reduced travel time.
The signalling interlocking is significantly simplified because it fundamentally only needs to provide a proven safe path for the train. It no longer needs the logic to prove a suitable aspect is displayed on the signal and especially does not need the logic to manage junction signal aspect release as practiced in the UK. Aspect release at junctions has developed following overspeed incidents through divergent junctions and is essentially addressing a human factors problem but recent events, such as Spital Junction and Grantham to mention just two, show this is far from secure. Such overspeed events will be managed by ETCS and it will also enable emergency speed restrictions to be quickly applied without staff needing to go trackside.
These features will, in time, give confidence in the application of ETCS and will result in a substantial reduction in the design, testing and implementation cost of the interlocking.
On more lightly used parts of the network the volume of signalling equipment could be reduced. There are many branch lines that carry a moderate amount of traffic, and these are often signalled with regular three or sometimes four aspect signals. The frequency of signals is partly a response to the need to ensure they meet the human factors requirement for the driver to make very similar responses to every signal to avoid a misunderstanding. A signal should not result in an over-braked distance to the stop location – that may result in a potential headway that is less than is genuinely required.
Many, of these routes may well be able to have fewer signal sections using cab signalling thus reducing the overall Signal Equivalent Units (SEU) on the network generating a further total cost reduction. With a current SEU costing almost £0.5 million this could quickly become a sizeable sum. On even more rural routes, especially single lines, all signalling equipment can be placed at locations where it is needed, normally near the passing loops. The concentration of the signalling equipment in local areas will reduce the need for long power feeding arrangements, saving further money – something that has already been demonstrated by RETB.
Opportunities
Further opportunities are the relative ease with which an additional stopping location can be added to the system, perhaps to protect a new freight siding or a new station. Often adding such a facility to current signalling requires the relocation of several signals on either side to maintain the previously mentioned interval between signals. This can make such projects unaffordable. With cab signalling this is not a problem, a new end of authority can be relatively simply inserted. It will also be possible to remove the current embargo on speeds above 125mph which are driven by concerns about seeing and responding to lineside signals. However other trackside equipment may need to be uprated should this happen.
There may also be opportunities to extract train location and speed data from the Radio Block Centre (RBC). The RBC sits alongside the interlocking and holds the infrastructure data such as gradient and the maximum speed profiles for different types of train. It is responsible for transmitting the movement authority by radio to the train, including this additional data, having had the route which is set confirmed by the interlocking.
The RBC offers opportunities to enhance level crossing function and safety especially for the lightly used crossings which are currently User Worked possibly with warning systems but also for Automatic Half Barriers where train arrival times can pose a constraint if there is a significant difference in approach speed. Such data may also provide more nuanced input to traffic management systems enabling better junction optimisation. No doubt others will see further opportunities as they become familiar with cab signalling in much the way that standard colour light signalling today is not the same as it was when first implemented.
You will notice I have not mentioned increases in capacity. Fundamentally, capacity on a mixed traffic railway is determined by the mix of trains and stopping patterns not the signalling system. Yes, small gains may be possible, for example at converging junctions where the second train can be released sooner, but these gains are more likely to improve robustness in the timetable rather than increase the total number of trains that can operate. This is different to a metro railway with common rolling stock and stopping patterns, where more paths can be created.
In conclusion, I therefore suggest that we should expect some significant disruption and cost associated with the initial applications of cab signalling or, to be specific, ETCS, but, if we work hard, we can reap the future benefits it will offer once it becomes part of the day-to-day functioning of the railway.
