Over the late May bank holiday and the following week, South Rail Systems Alliance (Colas Rail, Network Rail and AECOM) engineers replaced just under one mile (1,400 metres) of single-line track between Fareham and Botley on the Eastleigh-Fareham line, which forms part of the route from London to Portsmouth via Basingstoke.
A ballast train passes slowly through the work site.
The track was life-expired and, with a reduced number of trains running due to the Covid-19 crisis, this was an ideal opportunity to do the work. It was also school half term, so the small number of passengers who were using the line was further reduced.
Those passengers who did wish to travel were bussed between Eastleigh and Fareham, but those buses often only had single-figure passengers on them, vindicating Network Rail’s choice of timing.
The line was to be closed for a week, from Saturday 23 May until Saturday 30th.
As the track to be renewed was a single-track railway – it had been reduced from double to single track in 1973 – the normal practice of having supplies and equipment on the adjacent track was not possible. The line would have to be completely removed, dug out, new ballast placed and then new track laid. This would require the use of an NTC (new track construction) machine, which can lay sleepers ahead of itself, feed the rails into place and clip it up, ready for the machine itself to use that track as it moved forward.
In preparing for the work, Covid-19 had to be taken into account. All workers were instructed on the importance of distancing. High Motive, which provided a 24-hour service for duplex communications, back-to-back radios and RPE (respiratory powered equipment), as well as the MyZone proximity warning system for RRV (road-rail vehicle) exclusion zones, had sterilisation units on site so that equipment could be cleaned between shifts.
Work began in the early hours of Saturday 23 May. Much of the first day was taken up with cutting the old track into panels and lifting those out, with sleepers still attached, to be piled up alongside the line for later removal by train once the new track had been laid.
By the Saturday evening the old track was out and two new rails were being laid alongside the excavated trackbed, ready for the NTC machine when it started to lay track. The individual lengths of rail were welded together in continuous lengths.
The route included both track in the open and in Tapnage tunnel, (122 yards – 111 metres). Although the tunnel would require lighting, it was too short to need forced ventilation, although workers needed to be even more aware of the dangers of ballast dust, as well as having to keep two metres apart due to Covid-19!
Road-rail vehicle tidying up. Scrap track panels awaiting recovery, since removed.The NTC machine lays new concrete sleepers while, at the same time, feeding the previously laid rails into position.
Balfour Beatty’s NTC machine started work in the early hours of Sunday 24 May. At the front of the machine, two small ‘caterpillar’ tracks support a conveyor gantry that brings concrete (in this case) sleepers from the body of the machine and lays them in place, 600mm apart. It can place 10 sleepers per minute, although, with breaks and adjustments, it tends to lay around 1.4km (1,530 yards) per day – coincidentally, the same length as this track renewal.
Sleepers are supplied from a rake of special flatbed wagons pulled by and behind the NTC, with semi-automated ‘pickers’ running on rails along the edges of the flatbed wagons, bringing pallets of sleepers to the NTC and loading them into its hopper.
Once the sleepers are placed, the rail lying alongside the track is guided by a series of rollers, located on the NTC itself, into position and laid between the preinstalled clips. The rail is then clipped up before the wheels of the NTC machine run over the newly laid track.
The whole process is continuous and the entire length of new track, including through Tapnage tunnel, was completed in one 24-hour session.
Once the track was in place, the top layer of ballast was placed over it – the bottom ballast supports the track while the top ballast, above the level of the base of the sleepers, retains it in place.
One of Balfour Beatty’s tampers then took its first run over the new track. This process compacts and consolidates the ballast and also positions the track so that it is straight and level. Over the next two days, four more tamping runs would be carried out, each one improving the quality of the track so it would be in the best possible condition once the railway was handed back.
Over the same period of time, the rails themselves were stressed and trial running took place. Then it was just a question of tidying up, removing the old track panels and any other waste material, and handing the whole section back to the operator for Saturday morning.
What if there was a tried and tested solution to speed up trackside drainage times by a factor of 10, simultaneously reducing installation costs and improving site safety by halving the depth of trenches and the amount of crushed stone required? This method has been adopted by the highways industry for over 20 years, but fellow major linear asset engineers in the rail industry are yet to realise the same advantages.
This winter’s record rainfall and widespread flooding brought the issue of trackside drainage into sharp focus. Large sections of the network were inundated, flooding tracks and causing numerous embankment slips.
The scale of disruption highlights the importance of effective drainage systems. They must be able to resist high static and dynamic loads and be fully maintainable over a design life in excess of 60 years to provide the best whole-life cost.
As most drainage systems in the UK are installed during remediation, where time is limited, speed of installation is also a very significant factor.
Traditional cess drains
Current trackside drainage is reliant on cess drains, consisting of cut trenches, filled with crushed stone, below the sleeper level, either side of the track.
Excavating traditional cess trenches for drainage pipes and lining the sides of the trench with geotextile, prior to backfilling with crushed stone, is a relatively expensive and laborious process. Trenches deeper than 1.5 metres must be shored for support, prolonging the time that ‘boots are on the ballast’. Then there is the cost of disposing of the arisings and procuring new stone.
In addition, crushed stone is not a particularly efficient drainage material, since it interlocks when compacted, leaving very little void space for water flow.
Alternative solution
The realisation that it is the void space within a layer of crushed stone that achieves the drainage flow led to the development and specification of Fin drains or Fildrains, polymeric cores that have a high void ratio.
ABG Fildrains are a preformed drainage layer comprising a high-strength, lightweight HDPE (high-density polyethylene) cuspated core, laminated with geotextile. Fildrain has a flow capacity many times that of traditional crushed stone, owing to the unique open structure created by the dimpled core profile, allowing unhindered water flow.
The cuspated core of Fildrain at just 7mm thick – when tested under simulated site conditions – achieves an in-plane flow capacity of 1.0 l/m/s at a hydraulic gradient of 1. This is eight times that of a 500mm layer of drainage stone. It is the reduction in layer thickness, and the narrower trench widths required, that enables the geocomposite drain to achieve project time and cost savings, reducing closure times and the number of trackside deliveries required.
Fildrain has many applications in railway cuttings, cess and embankment drainage and is BBA approved, meeting requirements for load resistance, maintenance and fast installation. It is simply installed into narrow trenches, with the excavated soil replaced as the backfill and then topped with a thin layer of crushed stone. Fildrain is supplied in a range of heights to suit each application and for easy connection to existing drainage systems.
Guest Writer: Daniel Pyke – Rail expert and railway technical marketing professional
Early March was a turbulent time for the UK, with the unfolding virus situation spreading ever closer and rumours about lockdown timing were abound. However, this was not the only important news being watched from China, especially for those involved in supplying rail and steel in the UK.
On 9 March, a long-awaited agreement was made by a Chinese company (Jingye) to buy beleaguered British Steel, which supplies over 90 per cent of the rail for Network Rail. However, some may say this deal has more politics surrounding it than an entire season of ‘The West Wing’.
Greybull boom – and bust
In June 2016, Greybull Capital purchased British Steel from Tata Steel for £1. The operations purchased included mills in Middlesbrough and Skinningrove, Teesside, and Hayange, France, as well as its steel production plants and mills in Scunthorpe. Also included in the sale were a York-based consultancy business and an engineering company.
In an apparent miracle business turnaround, the steel operations went from losing £79 million in Financial Year (FY)16 to a profit of £47 million in FY17, growing further still in FY18.
In October 2017, the group expanded with the acquisition of FNsteel, a Dutch wire processing company, adding just under 300 employees to the workforce. In May 2019, a deal was announced by the parent company to purchase Ascoval, a distressed French steelmaker with around 270 employees. This deal sourced 47 million Euros from the French state and local government bodies to match 47 million euros of funding from British Steel’s parent company.
From initial appearances, the future looked bright – almost as bright as the company’s orange logo.
All was not quite as rosy as appearances portrayed. Just weeks after posting its record profits of £68 million, the company needed emergency government loans of £120 million just to stay afloat. Only two weeks later, further emergency government loans of £30 million were requested, but this time were not provided, and British Steel Ltd was forced into liquidation on 22 May 2019.
Disused blast furnaces mean Hayange is reliant on imported steel.
There may, in future, be a thorough investigation into just how a seemingly profitable company found itself in such dire straits, but none has yet been announced due to the sale process being carried out. What has come to light so far makes for eyewatering reading for those left picking up the pieces – largely the taxpayer and the employees.
Large high-interest loans (nine per cent above bank rates) were made to the company from its offshore parent, requiring a £17 million interest payment each year. A directors’ pay-out of £3.3 million was recorded in 2018 and Greybull charged a £3 million management fee each year.
Perhaps the biggest questions lie around how carbon credits, essential for the business operation, were sold to keep the company afloat. This built up a £120 million bill it had no way of funding with no escape from the deadline. In essence, the company was loaded with debt until it could be hidden no longer, and its collapse was inevitable.
Unusually, despite being forced into liquidation, British Steel was permitted to continue to trade, limping along in a government-assisted liquidation limbo, whilst a buyer was sought for all its operations. Due to how the business was structured, only the UK steel operations were forced into liquidation, with the consultancy business, and its French rail and Dutch wire operations, continuing to trade as normal.
Some may ask: “Why was the UK steel business allowed to continue to trade?” Part of the answer lies in the fact that many of the steel plant operations cannot be simply switched off without incurring massive rebuild costs, which would have crippled any potential sale of the whole business. Blast furnaces cannot simply be switched on and off.
Turkish interest
In August 2019, the first glimpse of progress in the sale of the business became visible. After considering several bids, a Turkish company Oyak (via a holding company Ataer) emerged as the first-choice buyer for the steel business. Portrayed by the media as the Turkish military pension fund, the group also happened to own the largest Turkish steel company.
In a separate transaction on 30 August, the consultancy business (TSP Projects) was sold to Systra as an ongoing business to continue to operate in both rail and other construction project areas.
In October 2019, after 10 weeks of exclusive negotiations, the Oyak bid stalled amid reports that British Steel’s suppliers had refused to accept lower prices, sinking the deal. The Brexit brinkmanship being played through parliament may have also played its part, along with emerging allegations of corruption and mistreatment of workers, as well as uncomfortable links with Turkish military actions in Syria, all tarnishing the deal’s appearance.
Chinese offer
With the government desperate to avoid massive job losses in a key Brexit-voting constituency on the run up to a December general election, a new surprise contender emerged from China – Jingye.
Jingye group is a conglomerate of companies including steel, pharmaceuticals and hotels, led by a former Communist party official, Li Gangpo. Jingye emerged the hot favourite to save British Steel, securing a government support package of £300 million in the process by promising to invest £1.2 billion to reinvigorate the UK-based steel maker. Jingye offered to buy the whole of the remaining British Steel group, which included its French rail mill and Dutch wire operations.
However, the deal was not yet done, and more twists and turns remained on the road, or indeed railway, to redemption. The deal required approval from various government and EU bodies – and the thought of China owning key strategic industry did not sit comfortably with some.
In mid-November, the European steel association (EUROFER) raised objections to the deal, arguing it was yet another example of Chinas practice of “steel dumping” into the European Union, and that the UK government support as part of the deal might flout state-aid rules.
Rails ready for despatch.Rolling rails at Scunthorpe.
French politics (and Greybull again)
They say a week is a long time in politics – the same is true in steel sometimes, too. Just a week after the European steel association publicly threatened to block the steel deal, a rail-related coup also emerged.
Ascoval, the small, French electric steelmaker bought out of administration by the owners of British Steel (Greybull) just weeks before the UK steel business entered liquidation, pulled off a seemingly impossible ask. Ascoval announced it had secured a four-year deal with French state-owned railway group SNCF to supply over half a million tonnes of steel starting in September 2020. The steel was, of course, to be supplied to the Hayange rail mill.
Whilst, on the surface, that may initially sound like good news for the rescue of British Steel, the direct opposite was true. Due to the fact only the UK steel operations of British Steel were in liquidation, the Hayange rail plant remained solvent and owned by Greybull. So, a government-supported steelmaker, controlled by Greybull, won a multi-year contract for the majority of steel supply to the French railway via a rail mill also owned by Greybull.
It is worth noting that, when the contract was announced, Ascoval did not produce rail steel and, indeed, did not have the production machines needed to supply it. The reader can decide whether that sounds a little unusual.
Days later, in December, adverts emerged in the press for the sale of a rail mill based in North East France. It was not too difficult to guess which mill this was. These adverts were not placed by the liquidator but were, reportedly, placed by well-meaning local managers eager to secure a Plan B should the Jingye deal fail. Well, that was the story.
As might be expected, both Jingye and British Steel personnel were furious at the unfolding French revolt. UK representation was installed on the French board of directors in short order, but the damage was done. Jingye founder Li Ganpo even took to the French press to put forward plans to develop the site, attempting to woo the unions to secure backing for his bid for the plant. The French rail business had remained consistently profitable and so formed an attractive and important part of the deal for Jingye, as well as being a base within the European Union to reduce rail business Brexit risks.
In January, just hours before Brexit day, another trade row raged in the halls of politics. It was reported that French finance minister Bruno Le Maire told Chancellor Sajid Javid the Paris government would not sign off on a deal and there was “no way” the £50 million sale of British Steel to a Chinese buyer would be supported by the French government, landing a heavy blow to the deal’s chances of success.
Takeover details
Later in January, the UK workers were presented with the stark sacrifices any purchase by Jingye would involve. It was dressed up as a negotiation between unions and the new owners, but only one side had any real power. The deal would require a further reduction in workforce of around 450 jobs and a significant erosion of terms and conditions. Indeed, by negotiating to protect blue-collar workers’ pay, the unions negotiated up the number of job losses required, and white-collar staff were hit with a well disguised 10-12 per cent reduction in their benefits over two years.
Reheated steel ready for rolling at Hayange, France.Rails cooling – Hayange.
On 9 March 2020, some 292 days after British Steel (Ltd) went into liquidation, the sale of British Steel’s assets was completed, saving 3,200 jobs and with Jingye pledging to invest £1.2 billion over the coming decade.
However, the rescue left a bitter taste in the mouths of the 450 people not offered employment at the new company with an old name. Hundreds of workers, given at best a week’s notice, were dropped into the job market abyss just days before the Covid lockdown commenced. Those trawling the job adverts were further dismayed to see British Steel procurement vacancies listed with desirable attributes including speaking Mandarin, reinforcing rumours that sourcing from the far east was a key cost-saving strategy for the company.
On many fronts, it was not quite the company-saving deal originally envisaged. It did not include several parts of the UK steel distribution business, totalling around 100 employees, which were closed or sold separately. In addition, and importantly for this readership, it did not include the profitable French rail business, totalling around 450 employees. Both changes turned colleagues into competitors overnight.
Looking deeper into the rail business divorce, it was a difficult time for both British and French rail businesses. The French rail business was rebranded and relaunched as “France Rail Industry” celebrating its departure from British Steel in its initial announcements. However, it soon found itself baulking at the new commercial price for steel supply from Scunthorpe.
The result was all steel flows (around 400,000 tonnes per year) from Scunthorpe to the French rail mill stopped and have, at the time of writing, not resumed, nearly three months later.
With only a few months’ steel supply held, the French rail mill is now increasingly reliant on imported steel from elsewhere. This steel is shipped from either Germany, which is of insufficient size to produce the longest rails customers want, or from low-cost sources in India. The French steel maker Ascoval does not yet have the capability to supply. It is somewhat ironic that a deal which was partly scuppered by French politics over concerns of handing control of a strategic asset to Chinese owners, now relies on imports from India and Germany instead of from the UK.
Current situation
In a quirk of Covid fate, the lockdown caused the closure of the French rail facility for three weeks. It has since only partially reopened, whereas the UK operations remained in production. This has eased the short-term steel sourcing supply challenge, at least temporarily, for the French rail mill whilst its final buyers are decided and the necessary French government approvals sought. It is rumoured that the deal should be completed by August.
Arguably, British Steel’s UK operations came off worst in the separation. It needs to find a profitable home for the steel volumes that were destined for France, quite a challenge in the current climates and doubly so once outside the EU, with whatever trade barriers are erected.
The UK rail mill, although arguably more efficient, does not offer the breadth of products that the older but better-invested French facility does. Due to the split in businesses, British Steel lost around 60 per cent of its rail capacity but over 90 per cent of its product range and the entirety of its heat-treated rail capability. Although investment in the Scunthorpe rail mill has been promised, which will add a heat treatment facility, no date for the project has yet been announced, leaving it at a significant disadvantage if trying to compete on the world stage.
Looking at the impacts on the UK’s rail industry, they are numerous but not all negative. The potential loss of 300,000 tonnes of regular freight to the continent each year is likely to put a dent in the freight statistics – at least in the metals area. However, the extra European steel freight flows will offset this, for continental operators at least. UK rail networks, both large and small, also get a new rail supplier (Hayange) on their doorstep, with proven routes into the UK, which will be eager to make its mark on the UK market.
Network Rail perhaps gets to enjoy three benefits. First, the second reincarnation of British Steel ensures that it will have locally available rail and it will continue to enjoy the levels of service with which other suppliers cannot currently compete.
Secondly, the promised investment in UK rail production facilities will likely bring greater levels of product choice.
And lastly, but by no means least, Network Rail now has another approved supplier to source from on its doorstep, reducing reliance on one key supplier. Whether, and to what degree, the last option is exercised is largely down to politics once again.
In the current turbulent times with Brexit deals looming and protectionism rife, it is a brave person who can predict the future fortunes of British Steel, but it will certainly be an interesting one to watch.
Steel blooms from Scunthorpe awaiting rolling at Hayange.
Crossrail has many complex systems but providing the entire route with a new signalling system is one of the biggest challenges. It is a highly complex arrangement, with many interfaces between different new and legacy systems, although final testing is now underway.
It is easy to forget that the genesis of Crossrail dates back nearly 30 years. Even when the provisional go ahead was given around 12 years ago, many of the signalling systems that we now take for granted did not then exist. The option of ERTMS Level 3 is available only in very limited form even today and ETCS Level 2 with ATO superimposed was just a concept.
The choice as to how train command and control would be achieved had to be based on projections for established technology. The result is a bit of a ‘mish mash’, but similar situations have existed in cities abroad with a workable solution being obtained.
Platform screen doors at Liverpool Street.
The Signalling Elements
Key to the first decision was the need to provide for 24tph (trains per hour) initially in the central core section, with a longer-term timetabled capability for 30tph. To achieve this performance level, it requires ATO (Automatic Train Operation) which at that time could only be provided by a proprietary CBTC (Communications-Based Train Control) system, the result of which was a contract with Siemens for its Trainguard product. This will also be used on the Abbey Wood branch, since it is, in effect, a terminating station for the Crossrail service, which will be known as the Elizabeth line once it enters service.
At the other extremities, Crossrail trains will share tracks with Great Western Railway and Heathrow Express services out of Paddington to Reading and Heathrow, and with Great Eastern services from Liverpool Street to Shenfield. Neither of these routes will be suitable for the Trainguard technology.
From Paddington westwards, the normal train protection is provided by TPWS and AWS. However, another complication has been the existence of the trial ATP (Automatic Train Protection) system, dating back to British Rail days, which remains in operation for some of the GWR train fleet. This also provided the protection on the Heathrow branch and, at one time, it was thought Crossrail trains might have to be fitted with that system, which in view of its age and increasing obsolescence would not have been a good idea.
The authorities ruled that something better than TPWS would be needed on the Heathrow branch and thus it was decided that ETCS Level 2 should be provided. That meant Crossrail trains having to be ETCS fitted, a sensible decision as this represents the future of train control for the whole country.
As well as the ETCS provision between Airport Junction and Heathrow, ETCS Level 2 is now being fitted to the GW main line back to Paddington as an overlay to existing lineside signals, with trials about to commence.
Out of Liverpool Street, it is TPWS and AWS for the foreseeable future, but, eventually, this route will also be converted to ETCS.
So, as well as CBTC, Crossrail trains have to be fitted with ETCS, TPWS and AWS, with automatic changeover between the systems at the appropriate point. Each of the systems are well proven in service, but it is the changeover that has caused the big technical challenge.
To keep the terminology in ‘ETCS-speak’, the legacy systems are known as National Train Control (NTC), and the signalling level as L-NTC (Level NTC).
Integrating the signalling
In addition to the different signalling systems, the control of the Crossrail route will be split across three control centres. On the GW main line, this is from the Thames Valley Signalling Centre at Didcot. The Crossrail core, including to Abbey Wood, will have a new control centre contained within Network Rail’s Rail Operating Centre (ROC) at Romford. The GE line, which is currently controlled from Liverpool Street IECC, will eventually transfer to the Romford ROC as well.
Route control centre at Romford.
The actual emergence of Crossrail into the open air is at Westbourne Park in the west and Pudding Mill Lane in the east. The changeover has to take place within these localities. Not only has the system to change but the driver’s display (DMI) must also change.
There are essentially three modes of operation:
L-NTC (AWS/TPWS), which represents conventional driving, with the standard AWS ‘sunflower’ and TPWS indicators/buttons shown on the right-hand side of the DMI;
ETCS Level 2, with detailed Movement Authority (MA) information shown in the ‘Planning Area’ on the right-hand side of the DMI;
L-NTC (CBTC), where the normal mode will be Automatic (ATO) and the DMI will display relevant information such as Dwell Time count down and Platform Edge Door status. The right-hand side of the DMI is normally blank when in CBTC operation.
The transition and changeover will be ordered by the train passing over a succession of balise groups. These transmit data to the train in the form of ‘telegrams’ containing specific ‘packets’, such as the Level Transition Order packet.
JARGON
Some additional acronyms explained
ETCS: European Train Control System – modern in-cab signalling – in three Levels of functionality
ERTMS: European Rail Traffic Management System – ETCS’ big brother with GSM-R communications and (in theory) traffic management included.
TPWS: Train Protection & Warning System, introduced from 1997.
AWS: Automatic Warning System, introduced from 1956 though based on earlier systems.
ROGS: Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety Regulations) 2006.
IRSE: Institution of Railway Signal Engineers.
Map of the route showing the different signalling systems employed.DMI displays for(left) TPWS, (centre) ETCS Level 2 and (right) CBTC.
Coming eastbound towards Westbourne Park, the first balise group will order CBTC (1st priority) with TPWS as 2nd priority. Next there is a TPWS train stop to ensure that a train still in TPWS mode cannot proceed into the CBTC area. Finally, a second balise group will again order CBTC (1st priority) but this time with ETCS Level 0 as 2nd priority. ETCS Level 0 is the degraded mode of operation in the central core so it needs to be available for the driver to select at any time whilst in this area.
During these transitions, the driver will be prompted to acknowledge them by pressing a flashing button on the DMI. If no acknowledgement is made within a transition time, the train will be service braked to a stop. A similar progression will occur for a train approaching Pudding Mill Lane in the westward direction.
In the other direction, at Westbourne Park, westbound trains will have the CBTC disabled once the first GW signal has been passed. At Pudding Mill Lane, an overlay section has been created between there and Stratford and the MA for an eastbound train must align with the lineside signals.
A further transition is needed at Airport Junction where a train bound for Heathrow operating in AWS/TPWS will pass balises to firstly switch to ETCS Level 1 and shortly after to ETCS Level 2. The progression from Level 1 to Level 2 is needed in order to give sufficient time for the radio session to establish. Should the ETCS Level 2 fail in the Heathrow tunnel, the agreed degraded mode fall back is TPWS/AWS.
Although not regularly used for train services, the Crossrail line at Abbey Wood does have a connection to the North Kent line, which will be used for engineering trains and any other stock movements. This too must have a signalling interface, although it is likely that trains will stop whilst the onward signalling is instigated.
The Crossrail rolling stock
One fortunate feature of Crossrail is that only a single type of train will be used. These are the Bombardier Class 345 ‘Aventras’ in a nine-car formation. The first of these entered service on the Liverpool Street to Shenfield route in June 2017, but they are currently restricted to seven cars due to platform lengthening work not being completed.
Although equipped with ETCS, this has been disabled and the trains operate only on AWS/TPWS.
The next introduction was from Paddington to Reading on 29 July 2019. These trains have both ETCS and CBTC operational, as well as AWS/TPWS, to allow for test running on to the Heathrow branch and the Crossrail central core.
The knowledge gained from ETCS testing to Heathrow has been put to good use when retrofitting the Class 387 trains that will be taking over the Paddington to Heathrow service.
ORR authorisation was given on the 6 May for the Class 345 trains to operate in passenger traffic to Heathrow, the compliance to ETCS standards having been proven.
Installing the signalling equipment on to the Class 345s has not been difficult as it was always part of the design. The DMI is a single unit that configures to the different types of signalling. The AWS/TPWS readers are mounted on the bogie, the balise antenna is bolted to the underframe and the on-board equipment cabinet is located behind the driver’s console. An Ethernet backbone provides the transmission system for the signalling and other on-board functions that interface with it. The CBTC communication between train and wayside will be by Wi-Fi, this being considered appropriate for an all-underground railway. For ETCS, the normal GSM-R radio link is provided.
The trains are being maintained at a new depot at Old Oak Common, commissioned in May 2018. This includes an internal signalling system provided by Atkins using the ElectroLogIXS interlocking, which is also at the existing Ilford depot.
Testing the signalling and the interfaces
As can be imagined, testing such a complex signalling arrangement could never be progressed on site. The solution was to start with laboratory testing, involving several labs in different parts of the world including Bombardier in Stockholm and Delhi, Siemens in Paris, Braunschweig and Chippenham, Mors Smitt (part of Wabtec) in Crewe and Burton, Alstom for ETCS interoperability and a further lab for Customer Information integration.
Hardware mounted on the train: (left) on the bogie and (right) under the frame.
All of these allow remote access, but getting results understood across all of them has been something of a challenge and, with hindsight, better lab integration would have helped.
Secondly, testing has taken place on the Old Dalby test track (Rail Innovation & Development Centre) at Melton Mowbray, near Nottingham, where 9km of the route has been equipped with balises to dynamically test the transition sequences. The trackside signalling is connected remotely to Bombardier’s Radio Block Centre simulator and Test Control terminal.
With offsite testing completed and the transitions proven, the current work is dynamic testing on the central core section, including degraded mode operation and ARS (Automatic Route Setting). Linkage to other subsystems in the tunnel have to be tested, which include platform screen doors, on board train alarms, overhead line monitoring and tunnel ventilation. All of these can affect the granting of a MA and, if any onboard fire alarm is activated, then the doors will not close at a station.
Particularly important is the ventilation system, which works on the principle of pull and push of air. Split into 44 sections, if a section fails with a train present, a second train will be prevented from entering that section if the braking curve permits. If the train cannot stop, then the adjacent two ventilation sections are combined and the second train can proceed until both trains are clear of the failed area. Until the fault is rectified, the system can operate normally by joining the failed section to an adjacent one.
Crossrail’s route control centre at Romford.Abbey Wood station.
Testing the west and east fringes is ongoing. Other interfaces include ATS (Automatic Train Supervision), RCS (Radio Control Supervision), ATC (the linkage to the train propulsion and braking systems) and the communications and information systems at stations, all of which need to be proven before the line can open. As a final sign off, acceptance of all the baseline software configurations and assurance documentation has to be completed in line with ROGS requirements.
As a separate exercise, but with implications for Crossrail operation, testing of a Class 345 from Airport Junction to Acton under ETCS control took place at the end of May. This is the second stage of Network Rail’s three-stage trackside ETCS deployment from Heathrow to Paddington. Depending on the date that Crossrail actually opens, it may well be that westbound trains will transition immediately to ETCS at Westbourne Park.
Final thoughts
Media publicity has not always been kind to Crossrail. With a much-publicised opening set for December 2018, there were red faces all round when it became clear this was never a reality. Various dates have been put forward since then, but it now looks as if it will be 2021 before passenger services commence. The complex signalling may have been one reason for the delay, but station fitting out has also been a factor.
All this adverse publicity will be quickly forgotten once the trains are running with many new journey opportunities.
Could the signalling have been simpler? The Thameslink solution using ETCS with an ATO overlay was considered, but modelling indicated that this would be unlikely to achieve the 30tph requirement when used in conjunction with platform screen doors.
Regardless, hindsight is a wonderful thing and the team are confident that the now almost-completed system will give years of reliable and consistent service for years to come.
Tom Godfrey from Bombardier and Rory Mitchell from Crossrail recently spoke on this subject at a meeting of the IRSE London & SE section, and much of this article is based on their presentations.
HS2 has launched its procurement process looking for specialist contractors to deliver the Overhead Catenary System (OCS) for the electrification of the new high-speed railway line between London, Birmingham and the north of England.
This rail systems contract – worth an estimated £300 million – is the latest in a series of procurement opportunities for rail systems, following on from the competitions for track, signalling and operational telecommunications that have already been launched.
The winner of the OCS package will be responsible for additional stages of design as well as manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the systems. OCS will be a single stage procurement, with the successful bidder delivering two separate contracts covering Phase One and Phase 2a – from London to Crewe, where HS2 services will join the existing west coast main line.
The system will cover 589 single track kilometres, including 62 viaducts, 293 bridges and 15 tunnels. The successful bidder will be responsible for design and will be expected to work closely with HS2’s other rail systems suppliers to ensure integration of its design and throughout construction, testing and commissioning.
HS2 will use the state-of-the-art V360 OCS design range under licence from SNCF Reseau – the first system in Europe to be certified for speeds of up to 360km/h. The licence agreement allows the OCS contractor to go to the components market to find the most competitive supplier, opening up opportunities for smaller suppliers across the UK.
A shortlist is expected to be announced in the summer with contract award in 2022.
HS2’s procurement and commercial director, David Poole said: “Our state-of-the-art rail systems will allow HS2 to run fast, frequent, high capacity services across the network – offering low carbon travel options for millions of people across Britain. The overhead catenary is a vital part of the project and the successful bidder will play a crucial role in keeping the HS2 network running safely and reliably.”
Earlier this week, HS2 also launched contract opportunities worth an estimated £498m, covering Tunnel and Lineside Mechanical and Electrical equipment across Phase One and 2a. This includes the tunnel services within the shafts, tunnels and cross-passages and low voltage power services and distribution in the open route.
A shortlist is expected to be announced towards the end of the year, with contract award in 2022.
Legislation to build Phase 2a (Birmingham-Crewe) is currently in the Lords with Royal Assent expected later in the year. All of the recent rail systems contract opportunities have included provision for work on 2a, with contracts expected to be signed once the legislation is in place.
Last year’s Leeds Digital Festival saw 25,000 attendees across 240 events with 750 speakers in 96 venues. The event was to be even bigger this year. With the COVID-19 lockdown this was not to be. However, the event was not cancelled. Instead, as befitting a digital event, it was transformed into a virtual festival with over 80 sessions.
This included the Railway Industry Association (RIA)’s Unlocking Innovation event “Digital journeys for rail passengers and freight”. Instead of a one-day event, this became five one-hour webinars during the week commencing 20 April. Each of these was hosted by Richard Jones, RIA’s senior technical and innovation manager, and had around 100 participants.
Richard Jones, third down, opens the webinars.
RIA’s Unlocking Innovation events have been run for ten years. They aim to inform suppliers about industry challenges and help them respond by encouraging collaboration with research centres such as the UK’s Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN). They also explain sources of funding available as well as offering SMEs the opportunity to pitch their ideas and capabilities.
This first on-line event generally did meet these objectives, although there was no exhibition or opportunity to network, as is normally the case. Since physical interaction is necessary for suppliers to build and maintain trust, it was felt that, in a post COVID world, there is unlikely to be a large-scale shift to video conferencing.
Richard pointed out that the aim is to refresh existing supply chains and attract new suppliers. For this reason, Monday’s seminar was for those new to the industry. The rest of the week’s programme was:
Tuesday – better journeys for passengers;
Wednesday – better freight services;
Thursday – Mobility as a service;
Friday – a better transport system for Leeds.
Each webinar started with keynote speakers presenting the challenges, followed by companies pitching their capabilities.
Monday – introducing the industry
Richard Jones made it clear that railways are not just a means of transport – they are a major industry, supporting 600,000 jobs and producing £36 billion gross value-added per year. He described the structure of the industry, explaining that relationships were primarily contractual with penalties for train delays. He felt that this could be a barrier to innovation and often resulted in a silo mentality.
However, over recent years, the railway is becoming ever-more digitised as assets, old and new, are being instrumented and monitored. There is also a huge conversion programme to digitise railway signalling and control it from a small number of operating centres. As a result, vast amounts of data are produced which must be managed effectively, though this can facilitate innovation as it can easily move between silos.
Karl Butler-Garnham, Network Rail’s research and development programme manager for future communications and train control, emphasised this point. He felt that the opportunities of the digital revolution had to be grasped to increase asset reliability and improve train performance. In this respect, Network Rail’s £357 million research and development programme offered unprecedented opportunities.
He advised that his team is working with hundreds of partners to deliver this programme and stressed that this is part of wider government industrial strategy. It also received European funding from the Shift2Rail programme, of which Network Rail is a member. He emphasised that Network Rail welcomed research pioneers and encouraged businesses to visit www.networkrail.co.uk/challenge-statements to understand what was required.
In the first ‘elevator pitch’, David Davey of Engineering Integration explained how his company could help those new to the railway navigate the industry’s processes and, if necessary, challenge them. Peter Hicks then described how his company had produced the Open Train Times website and could provide railway operational support for those new to the industry.
One such company is OneBigCircle, which specialises in intelligent video. Emily Kent described how her firm had developed Automated Intelligent Video Review (AIVR), which uses an in-cab Android device to capture video and machine learning to detect abnormalities. Following tests at the Quinton Rail Technology Centre test track, at Long Marston near Stratford-upon-Avon, and on Network Rail’s new measurement train, the company was awarded a vegetation-management contract by Transport for Wales.
Emily felt that Network Rail was looking for SMEs that have products with potential to meet its challenges and that Network Rail’s appointment of an SME champion had been extremely helpful.
Tuesday – passenger improvements
Understanding customers, so as to give them information they need, was the keynote address by Claire Cardosi, LNER’s head of digital decisioning. For her, providing personalised information is a priority. To achieve this, LNER Assistant was launched last year, which keeps passengers informed through either SMS texts, Facebook Messenger or the LNER Travel Buddy app.
However, as Claire explained, this is only available to the 23 per cent of LNER passengers who book tickets on the company’s website. She invited anyone with ideas of how to increase this engagement to contact her.
The Rail Research Data Platform (RRDP) was the subject of the presentation by Dr John Easton of the University of Birmingham. John is data lead for UKRRIN’s digital systems. Ten years ago, the McNulty rail value for money study had concluded that poor data systems inhibited rail’s ability to do business. Although much had been done since then, John felt that the vast amount of data generated by the industry could still be better exploited.
Network Rail’s R&D portfolio.
RRDP has been developed by UKRRIN as a cross industry platform for data-led research such as the prediction and mitigation of disruption. It contains data from UKRRIN partner organisations, such as train movements over five years, in a cloud-based platform. This can be used to trial machine learning and undertake whole-system analysis of large streaming datasets. As it is subject to governance requirements, to ensure that datasets are used as specified by providers, it can currently only be used by UKRRIN approved projects.
The day’s elevator pitches concerned practical applications of industry data. The first was from Liam Henderson of RailTimesApp, who had developed the WatchMyTrain app for Apple watches. Although this app is now available to the public free of charge, versions are being developed for front-line staff for whom handheld devices may not be suitable. The intention is to provide wearable technology that can provide information such as trains on which passengers require assistance.
Apple watch for platform staff.
Xingie Shen explained how his company, Transreport, was developing an app to assist rail passengers. Since 2018, it has been working with the Rail Delivery Group to develop an app supported by a new industry system to book passenger assistance, which is to be rolled out this year.
Replacing handwritten posters with lightweight, easily deployable technology displaying accurate consistent information was the subject of the pitch by Mark Bird of Blackboxco. To do this, the Blackbox company had considered how E-ink low-power displays had been used at London bus stops and developed a cloud-connected 32-inch E-Ink Totem for London Overground trains.
Wednesday – decomplexifying freight
So far, the webinars had been about digital innovation. However, Wednesday’s opening keynote showed how both hardware and digital innovation were needed to transform the freight business. The presentation by Gregory March, head of planning and resource for the Rail Operations Group, was a vision of future rail freight and described the high-speed logistics concept being developed by its sister company, Orion.
Although there is a clear need to shift freight from road to rail, this is not easy, as rail freight requires high volumes. It also works to tight financial margins and cannot justify capital investment without a guaranteed market. Nevertheless, Orion considers high-speed logistics to be a worthy investment.
The 20 per cent increase in road van use over the past ten years is an indication of the internet-driven increase in e-commerce. This could be a significant volume of rail traffic, even if rail captured only a small percentage. This is the rationale for the high-speed freight service that Orion is developing. To do so, it has ordered five Class 769 bi-mode trains from Porterbrook. These are redundant four-car class 319 units that have been fitted with diesel engines to augment their existing 25kV AC/750V DC electric capabilities.
Orion will also establish a network of passenger stations, terminals and ports for this high-speed service. This will be supported with digital logistics technologies that will provide state-of-the-art customer service, such as real-time tracking. Autonomous vehicles for first and last-mile services are also being considered.
Gregory also mentioned that the Rail Operations Group wishes to provide intermodal services at speeds comparable with passenger trains. So that they can be better accommodated on the network, a high-speed freight bogie is being developed. This is also one of the reasons for the procurement of Class 93 tri-mode locomotives.
Ten Stadler-built Class 93 electric/diesel/battery locomotive are expected to be delivered in 2022.
He also stressed the need for rail freight to be flexible to meet customer demands. Yet, in contrast to road operators who can instantly respond, it has to deal with time-consuming archaic paperwork-based systems for scheduling freight trains.
The answer to this problem was given by Professor Amar Ramudhin of the University of Hull’s Logistics Institute, which is part of UKRRIN. NR+ is the first digital platform which combines all the relevant information needed for freight train planning. The system was developed by the institute and was partly funded by the DfT and Innovate UK.
NR+ eliminates the need to find maximum tonnage and length for each segment by consulting load books, obtains route capability information from the sectional appendix, studies engineering access statements and completes forms to obtain dispensation for services exceeding published capability. Instead, interactive geospatial maps show possible freight train paths at a glance.
This significantly shortens the time required for freight train planning, reduces the training needed by new planners and minimises the likelihood of error. Professor Ramudhin acknowledged Network Rail’s excellent support in obtaining the required data and defining arrangements for updating NR+ as legacy systems are updated.
Yves Sterbak-Dicke of Protostellar, part of the Thales group, then described his company’s SmartRailPort system which offers a secure digital platform to manage the transfer and storage of containers at small rail terminals. This system provides terminal staff with a digital action list, enabling operators to provide a digital signature to record activities without leaving their cabs. It also calculates best loading and provides an estimated time of arrival.
Lucy Prior’s company 3Squared provides software solutions across the rail sector, such as RailSmart software tools that provide information to frontline staff and includes support for operational activities, training and competence management, operations and performance management. She considered that such tools were essential as they help reduce the weight of procedures and felt that developing such software was a massive opportunity for collaboration with industry partners.
NR+ includes interactive geospatial map.
The question and answer session noted the difficulties freight operators face, including exploiting actual capacity for freight operations. Yves Sterbak noted that freight forwarders see rail as a complex beast that they don’t want to touch as it is easier to use lorries, so he felt that the challenge is to “decomplexify rail freight”.
Thursday – Mobility as a Service
The subject of Thursday’s presentations was the use of cloud computing and mobile devices to facilitate seamless travel across differing public transport modes to provide Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The first was by Felicity Osborn, Network Rail’s programme manager for the €920 million European Shift2Rail initiative, which includes an innovation programme (IP4) for IT solutions for such multimodal travel.
The various IP4 projects are intended to improve customer experience and support Network Rail’s requirement to put passengers first by including mobility packages offering passengers smarter information and best-price travel. These projects require companies with expertise that includes demonstration planning, business analytics and systems integration.
Alex Weedon of Connected Places Catapult (CPC) explained how the Catapults accelerate the UK’s capability for innovation by helping companies commercialise innovation and stimulating engagement between businesses and research centres. CPC, formerly the Transport Systems Catapult, is keen to support SMEs. It does so by helping identify the need for innovation, assessing the best route for it and forming partnerships within its network of over 350 academics and 1,500 SMEs.
The Intelligent Mobility Accelerator is a partnership between CPC and Wayra (Telefonica’s open innovation hub) that, to date, has created 24 commercial pilots for participating start-ups, which have raised over £200 million in investment. He announced that CPC was about to launch a programme that will be focused on rail and advised delegates to look out for this announcement.
In his pitch, Sam Bussey of Instrumentel, part of Unipart group, advised that his company specialised in precision measurements in extreme environments and the analysis of data from such sensors, providing a condition-based maintenance regime. When integrated with the Unipart supply chain, this ensures parts are supplied when required without excessive inventory costs.
Rene Perkins of City MaaS described the mobility app that her company is creating for passengers with disabilities. This matches specific disability requirements to appropriate transportation, using artificial intelligence to evaluate the best options.
Alex Shapland Howes was concerned with the needs of those outside big cities where bus services can be poor and there are no Uber taxis. He felt that most MaaS initiatives were concerned with big cities and that there was a requirement for digital transport technologies in areas with poor public transport.
His company, Tandem, has a ridesharing app that turns local taxis into micro buses by finding people travelling in roughly the same direction at about the same time. Such individuals often require a guaranteed arrival time, for example to get a train. Hence the service is booked by specifying the required drop off time, whereas city models book by pick up time.
Tandem is currently operating in Wellingborough, where it has formed partnerships with recruitment agencies that struggled to place people in out of town industrial estates.
Friday – mass transit for Leeds
The last day’s webinar considered a future transport system for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises Bradford, Calderdale Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield local authorities and is part of the wider Leeds city region. Tom Gifford, head of West Yorkshire Mass Transit, noted that, although the region has the largest regional economy in the UK outside Greater London, it has no mass transit system. Hence, an efficient transport infrastructure is a key priority for the region. He felt this will require vehicles that carried between 200 and 300 passengers.
The lack of an urban transit system does, however, give the region the opportunity to learn from others. To do this, in August, the Authority issued a call for market testing to understand how the industry sees mass transit developing so that it can use the best available technologies. About 120 organisations responded to this call.
Proposed VLR vehicle for Coventry.
Tom advised that broad conclusions from this exercise were:
Autonomous operation – Feasible in a fully segregated environment and for depot operation but unlikely to be possible in a mixed traffic environment in the next decade. Segregation gives reliable journeys, unaffected by traffic congestion.
Propulsion – Strong differences of opinion on whether hydrogen was appropriate. Feasible to plan end-to-end system battery operation with rapid charging points instead of overhead wires.
Connectivity – Single digital platform with standardised interface required to share data with all transport modes and technologies. 5G provides an opportunity for the control centre to control all vehicles remotely.
Climate emergency and air quality – Many cities are investing in light rail to meet climate change commitments which may also require car traffic demand management.
Future-proofing – Build in data-driven asset maintenance, giving flexibility for future passenger demands. Design-in redundancy for changing operating conditions.
Tom advised that the next step was to develop a strategic outline business case for the development and delivery of a mass transit system for which there is government commitment through the West Yorkshire devolution deal.
A low-cost mass transit option was presented by Dr Nick Mallinson, programme manager of the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG). He pointed out that medium-sized cities cannot justify the capital costs of conventional tram systems, which are typically £40 million per kilometre.
For some time, WMG has been developing Very Light Rail (VLR) technologies, which provide lighter vehicles designed for low-cost manufacturing, do not require overhead electrification, have autonomous control and a novel factory-manufactured track.
In 2016, Coventry City Council asked WMG if a VLR system could be provided at a cost of around £10 million per kilometre. To meet this requirement, WMG designed an 11-metre-long vehicle, capable of carrying around 50 passengers, powered by batteries with a range of around 20 kilometres using rapid charging at the end of each route. These will be ‘autonomous ready’, so will eventually not require drivers.
Working with Ingerop Rendell, WMG is also developing a novel track form of modular construction that will be no more than 300mm deep to provide faster installation by minimising excavations and utility diversions. This track will be tested at the VLR national innovation centre in Dudley, which is currently under construction.
The plan is to component test the prototype vehicle by the end of 2020, install the track form at the Dudley test centre at the end of 2021 and then trial vehicle running. Over the next three years, Coventry City Council will prepare the Transport and Works Order with the intention of construction starting in 2024 and the first phase opening in 2025.
The need for autonomous trains was highlighted in the pitch by Adam Stead of Apollo, who advised that drivers cost £450,000 per train per year. Such systems would enable autonomous on-street operation of vehicles such as those being developed by WMG. Apollo is also developing an autonomous moving block signalling system which Swiss Federal Railways is considering for degraded operations.
Novel track form under development.
The final pitch of the day was from Mike Lloyd of Jnction, which uses digital technology to improve the experience of rail passengers. Clients include Northern Rail, Crossrail and London Overground. Jnction’s products include an app that provides front-line Crossrail station staff with the train-running information they require as well as a hidden disability journey planner for autistic people that minimises their stress minutes for easier end-to-end journeys on public transport.
Virtual food for thought
RIA’s unlocking innovation events always do exactly what they say. This virtual event was no exception. However, with no networking opportunities, such events are unlikely to be the norm in a post-COVID world. Although these webinars lacked the atmosphere of a physical event, they are a good way of learning about developments. The host, Richard Jones, did a good job of engaging with his unseen audience.
The webinars raised some interesting issues. Various presentations concerned smartphone apps and it was good to see some of these supporting passengers with disabilities. One speaker suggested that apps which scanned QR codes could replace expensive signage with personalised information. Yet not everyone has a smartphone, and the railway must not exclude those who are not digitally connected.
The ever-smaller percentage of fares paid by cash raises a similar issue, as cash collection can cost more than the amount received. For this reason, TfL no longer accept cash on buses. However, West Yorkshire’s Tom Gifford felt that inclusivity is important, so public transport should not discriminate against those without smartphones or who pay only in cash.
It will be interesting to see which technologies will be chosen for the proposed West Yorkshire mass transit system, which will no doubt bring great benefits to the region. Yet, as conventional trams are too expensive for smaller cities, WMG’s development of a lower-cost VLR system is a worthwhile initiative. However, it remains to be seen how VLR’s capacity will compare with the 10,000 people per hour that conventional trams can carry.
In big cities, the real purpose of Mobility as a Service is to encourage drivers out of their cars and onto good public transport systems. In contrast, there is a real need for smart digital transport technologies outside cities, to make the best use of available transport. Alex Shapland-Howes is right to suggest that more needs to be done in this respect.
The Rail Operations Group is investing in innovative rolling stock and digital technologies to drive the growth of its business. Yet it was clear that rail freight is inhibited by processes that restrict its agility. As Yves Sterbak noted, the challenge is to “decomplexify rail freight”. Perhaps Network Rail could usefully produce a challenge statement to define what needs to be done in this respect. The NR+ system, as described by Professor Ramudhin, is certainly one answer, as it removes the planning constraints of historic British Rail systems that have been used for so long.
As described above, the webinars provided much food for thought with some inspiring presentations. One key message was that there is no shortage of funds to assist companies to develop worthwhile ideas, especially if they already have a working product.
Rail Engineer looks forward to seeing how the ideas presented at these unlocking innovation webinars will be developed.
RIA’s next set of unlocking innovation webinars will take place during the week commencing 29 June. Open to all, they can be booked on the RIA website and will explore how the Digital Railway programme is evolving into ‘business as usual’ as the first rollout projects commence.
The feature in our March issue that considered the electrification required for a zero-carbon railway attracted a great deal of interest. This included a map showing that between 4,300 and 6,300 route kilometres of electrification was likely to be required from an analysis of the amount and type of traffic on currently unelectrified lines.
Some responded stating that particular lines on the map should be shown as definite, rather than possible, electrification. Whilst this could well be the case, this study was not intended to be a definitive, line-by-line statement of electrification requirements. Instead, it set out to show the scale of electrification required, with immediate priorities. This had to take account of the amount of electrification that a cost-effective rolling programme could deliver by the 2050 net-zero target date.
Requests for the spreadsheet used in this analysis were received from various train manufacturers and industry bodies. One of these was considering how gauging strategy could take cognisance of future electrification plans, in respect of passive provision where there will be no electrification. This is an example of the need for a strategic overview.
Diesel freight under the wires, only 6% of UK rail freight is diesel hauled, much of this for long distances on the electrified network.
TDNS study
The spreadsheet was also shared with Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) team. This strategy was a recommendation of the report by the rail industry’s decarbonisation taskforce, which was set up to respond to the then Transport Minister Jo Johnson’s call in February 2018 to eliminate diesel-only trains. With the subsequent UK adoption of a net-zero carbon target, this requirement became the elimination of all diesel trains.
The TDNS is analysing all unelectrified rail corridors to determine whether they should use electric, hydrogen or battery traction by considering the limitations of battery and hydrogen traction and the cost of electrification. A programme business case will then be produced, using a whole lifecycle cost and benefit model that quantifies carbon savings to provide the basis for each element of a rolling decarbonisation programme, together with a map showing which traction technologies should be deployed.
This work will provide Network Rail’s regions with an overarching strategic document to prioritise infrastructure work and develop their infrastructure decarbonisation projects. It will also inform future rolling stock requirements for those who buy and manufacture trains. In this respect, the TDNS will consider rolling stock that needs to be renewed before the 2050 deadline and opportunities to retrofit existing diesel bi-modes with zero-carbon traction.
From a discussion with Michele Piu, a strategic planner in the TDNS team, it was clear that Rail Engineer’s electrification map was broadly in line with the TDNS’s emerging conclusions. These are that rail decarbonisation requires a major electrification programme, although electrification cannot be justified on lines with limited use. On some lines it is not yet possible to specify a definitive solution, given future unknowns such as the emerging cost of electrification, government valuation of carbon savings and emerging capabilities hydrogen and battery traction.
The TDNS report will provide an indicative decarbonisation programme and will be sent to decision makers for endorsement later this year.
Decarbonising transport
The DfT published its “Decarbonising Transport” report in March. This rightly emphasised the need for a shift from cars to public transport and for zero-emission road vehicles. However, it did not fully address the net-zero report produced by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). For example, the DfT report did not mention the need to double electricity generating capacity for large scale use of electric road vehicles.
The CCC report considers that, by 2050, HGVs would be hydrogen powered, as batteries are unlikely to be suitable for heavy road vehicles. To achieve net zero, the CCC report considers that the annual demand for hydrogen for transport requires investment in hydrogen infrastructure to service an annual demand of about 25 TWh (HGVs – 22 TWh, Buses – 3 TWh, Trains – 0.3 TWh).
However, the DfT report also does not mention hydrogen powered HGVs or buses. This omission was underscored by a recent letter to Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hydrogen, which complained that, whilst his department is funding a £50 million trial of electric buses, there is no equivalent funding for hydrogen bus trials.
In respect of aviation, the DfT’s report considers efficiency improvements, sustainable fuels and market-based measures. It does not mention the CCC report’s conclusion that there are unlikely to be zero-carbon planes by 2050 (Airbus and Rolls-Royce have recently cancelled their E-Fan X demonstrator programme, just a year before the experimental hybrid-electric engine airliner was supposed to fly) or its recommendation of a 30 per cent reduction in plane travel. Instead, DfT notes that airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity.
The section on passenger rail notes that the railway is becoming less carbon-intensive as new trains come into service and the railway uses greener electricity. It concludes that “we recognise that electrifying more of the railway is likely to be necessary to deliver decarbonisation”.
The use of the term “likely” is curious, as statistics demonstrate how existing electrification is progressively reducing carbon emissions, as with the greening of the grid. As shown in the table, over the past five years, the average electric rail passenger vehicle has reduced its emissions by 41 per cent and, per vehicle, diesel passenger trains now produce almost four times more CO2 emissions than electric trains.
The DfT report does, however, recognise that “the main way to achieve rail freight decarbonisation is to stop using diesel traction through direct government intervention to roll out further electrification”. It further states that the TDNS will inform the deployment of electrification and use of battery and hydrogen technologies over the next 30 years, and also notes the requirement “to make rail an even more attractive option so that more people choose this greener mode of travel”.
Clean air
Poor air quality, like CO2 emissions, is a subject of increasing public concern. Public Health England considers it to be the “biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure”.
Five per cent of the population are estimated to have respiratory problems. Those recovering from Coronavirus will also suffer lung damage.
While air quality and greenhouse gases are two different problems, they have the same solution – the replacement of diesel engines by zero-carbon traction. However, unlike greenhouse gases, the risk from air pollution is at specific locations. For this reason, improving air quality at problematic stations is a factor that the TDNS will consider when prioritising electrification schemes.
Various UK cities are establishing clean air zones (CAZ), where road vehicles not meeting the required emission standards are banned or pay a fine. Birmingham’s CAZ, the area within the inner ring road, came into force in January and imposes an £8 per day charge for diesel cars that fail to meet Euro 6 emission standards. Birmingham New Street station, where air quality is a particular problem, lies within this zone.
In 2018, a University of Birmingham study found, at platform level below the concourse, a consistent exceedance of the DEFRA one-hour nitrogen dioxide limit, with, typically, one hundred trains a day idling for more than 15 minutes.
Since then, £1 million has been spent to upgrade the station’s 98 extractor fans and install 97 new sensors to monitor exhaust fumes. In addition, the action plan to reduce train idling includes installing auto-shutdown software on class 220/221 units and health screening all platform despatch staff. This plan is supported by analysis of the large amount of real-time data from these sensors to identify hot spots and monitor the emissions of each train.
Whilst this will, no doubt, improve the situation, the real solution is the decarbonisation of trains using the station.
Hydrogen
There are no harmful emissions from hydrogen trains as fuel cells mix hydrogen fuel with oxygen in the air to produce electricity and water vapour, the train’s only emission.
Except for short-distance services, hydrogen trains are the only non-zero carbon option for non-electrified lines. Yet, for the same energy storage, hydrogen at 350bar requires fuel tanks eight times the size of a diesel tank. Hydrogen trains are also inefficient, due both to the losses from converting electricity to hydrogen and back again and to the energy needed to compress hydrogen for storage. With a hydrogen train, one kilowatt of power at the wheel requires, typically, 3.4 kilowatts of grid electricity. By comparison, an electric train requires about 1.2 kilowatts. Whilst hydrogen can be produced using surplus overnight wind power, this inefficiency is a significant issue if hydrogen were to be used on a large scale.
Our feature in the March issue concluded that, for a net-zero railway, hydrogen trains will carry between five and 18 per cent of the traffic. Thus, assuming that in 2050 there will be 22,000 passenger vehicles in service, between 1,000 and 4,000 hydrogen vehicles would be required by then.
Despite the lack of UK hydrogen passenger trains, hydrogen traction can be regarded as a mature traction technology. Alstom’s hydrogen-powered two-car Coradia iLint entered service in northern Germany in September 2018. In addition to these two pre-series trains, a further 39 units have been ordered for use in Germany.
In March 2020, a hydrogen-fuelled iLint successfully completed ten days of testing in the Netherlands.
Siemens is also developing a hydrogen train based on its Mireo platform, which is expected to be ready next year.
Hydroflex, a joint development by Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham.
Britain’s first mainline hydrogen train is Hydroflex, a joint development by Porterbrook and the University of Birmingham. This was produced in just nine months by housing the fuel cell, battery, hydrogen storage tanks and other equipment inside the motor vehicle of a converted Class 319 EMU. Hydroflex is purely a demonstrator vehicle, from which many useful lessons will be learnt.
Alstom unveiled its design for a UK hydrogen train in January last year. This ‘Breeze’ concept is a Class 321 conversion that packs Alstom’s hydrogen technology within the UK loading gauge. Unlike the iLint, which has roof-mounted hydrogen tanks, the Breeze stores hydrogen inside the train with a consequent reduction in passenger space. With a new train, rather than a conversion, it may be possible to design hydrogen storage that does not encroach the passenger area. However, a bespoke UK hydrogen train would require a significant production run.
Whilst hydrogen traction is being actively pursued in the UK, it may be some years before passengers travel on hydrogen trains. Obtaining approval to operate a train with systems for which there are no standards will be challenging. Another issue is a reliable supply of hydrogen.
The iLint’s roof mounted hydrogen fuel cells and tanks.
The Tees Valley Combined Authority is developing plans for hydrogen trains, as the area produces a large amount of the UK’s hydrogen. Other reports indicate that the deployment of hydrogen trains require the development of hydrogen infrastructure, yet there is no requirement for hydrogen trains to operate close to a hydrogen plant or be supplied from hydrogen pipelines.
Currently, almost all hydrogen is produced in large chemical plants by reforming methane gas. This produces greenhouse gas emissions and is insufficiently pure for use in fuel cells. Alternatively, it can be produced by electrolysis, which produces a purer hydrogen and is zero-carbon if powered by renewable energy.
In Aberdeen, the electrolysis plant that fuelled the city’s fleet of ten hydrogen buses had to produce around 150kg of hydrogen per day. It consisted of three electrolysers (each the size of a 40ft container), two compressors, two dispensers, storage tanks, associated control systems and cooling plant. It required a 1MW electricity supply.
With the iLint’s hydrogen tanks holding 190kg of hydrogen, a train depot servicing, say, a fleet of ten trains would need an electrolyser plant around fifteen times of that in Aberdeen bus plant. Such a facility could cost around £20 million.
It is likely that, as in Germany, the train manufacturer would provide this plant to give train operators a serviced and fuelled train. Hence, the cost of the electrolyser plant increases the up-front cost of the trains and requires an order for a small fleet to justify this investment. Thus, like electrification, hydrogen trains require capital investment before fleet operation is possible.
Nine-car bi-mode Azuma train with five 560kW diesel power packs.
The transition
Much has been written on how net-zero rail traction can be achieved by 2050. However, for most of the network, this is a relatively straightforward problem, as the underlying science defines where it is appropriate to have electrification, hydrogen or battery traction.
However, transitional arrangements are a more complex issue. The big lesson from recent electrification schemes is the need for a cost-effective rolling programme. Hence it will be many years before some lines requiring electrification get their wires. TDNS must therefore prioritise electrification and determine the best use of transitional low-carbon technologies. This is a complex task given the size of the unelectrified network and number of options.
The good news is that modern traction technology facilitates a rolling programme of electrification. Battery traction can provide zero-carbon running over short distances in advance of electrification. For example, LNER is considering replacing diesel power packs with batteries on Azuma trains for short distances off the wire, such as to Lincoln and Harrogate.
An option being considered in Scotland is electrifying the six-mile Levenmouth branch as it is reopened. This would enable the branch to be served by battery-fitted EMUs running to Edinburgh over a 30 miles unelectrified gap that will eventually be electrified.
Bi-mode trains support a rolling programme as the amount of diesel running can be progressively reduced as a route is electrified. Replacing the diesel-powered HST fleet with bi-modes resulted in significant carbon savings as it eliminated diesel running under the wires. For example, a Class 800/1 between London and Inverness has about a third of the CO2 emissions of the HSTs they replaced. Yet their diesel power packs, which are generally unused for most of the journey, account for eight per cent of the weight of the train and thus result in additional energy consumption when running on fully electrified routes. Moreover, as the diesel performance of bi-mode trains does not come close to their electric power, it was wrong for Chris Grayling to claim that these trains make electrification unnecessary.
Another useful transitional-only technology is dual-fuelled trains, a concept that Grand Central was about to trial before the COVID 19 emergency. The company has a fleet of ten five-car Class 180 ‘Adelante’ DMUs, which are now the only diesel trains that operate into King’s Cross.
This trial is on a vehicle on one of the Class 180 units. This has been fitted with dual-fuel technology which optimises combustion when liquified natural gas (LNG) is mixed with diesel. The LNG is stored at minus 190°C in a cryogenic tank. The dual-fuel engine performs exactly as if it were running as a diesel-only engine and has a reduced diesel consumption and engine noise. This is a proven technology used on over 300 lorries in the UK that have run over 50 million kilometres.
This system reduces particulate emissions by over 50 per cent and CO2 by between 25 and 40 per cent. The pay-back period from the reduced fuel costs is less than five years. This trial, which was part-funded by RSSB, will resume when COVID 19 restrictions permit.
Dual-fuel technology thus solves half the emissions problem. It is also relatively straightforward to refit. Given the time needed to electrify the network and introduce hydrogen trains, it might be expected that other diesel train fleets, with many years life remaining, will be retrofitted with this technology.
The first law
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created but can only be converted from one form to another. Hence most forms of transport must store chemical or electrical energy and carry a power unit to convert this to kinetic energy. A vehicle’s power and range is limited by the energy it can store.
The challenge for decarbonised transport is that nothing comes close to the amount of energy stored in liquid fossil fuels. For planes, it is difficult to imagine any alternative. For trains and road vehicles, the only practical zero-carbon energy storage is batteries and hydrogen (at 350bar) with energy densities of typically seven and 14 percent that of diesel fuel. Thus, they can only be used for relatively low powered applications and, in the case of batteries, for short distances.
Electric trains, however, can get around the limitations of the first law of thermodynamics as they can receive a large amount of energy whilst in motion. Thus, their power is not limited by the need to store energy on-board or the maximum power of an on-board power plant.
In February 2018, when the then Transport Minister Jo Johnson challenged the industry to report back by the autumn how it could eliminate diesel-only trains to decarbonise the railway, he suggested that battery and hydrogen trains were a “prize on the horizon”.
It then took 18 months to produce the final 66-page rail industry decarbonisation report. Its foreward called for a judicious mix of electric, hydrogen and battery traction but did not refer to the large-scale electrification programme of 4,250 route kilometres mentioned on page 34. The report recommended that the TDNS should specify what this judicious mix should be.
It seems that the TDNS will show the need for a large-scale electrification programme once it is finalised. Thus, it will have taken around 30 months for the industry to submit a report to government that demonstrates the need for a large-scale electrification programme.
There is certainly a need for the TDNS’s detailed analysis, showing how the transition to a zero-carbon railway is best achieved. Yet it should only have required a few weeks to produce a report to show that net-zero rail traction is only possible with a large-scale electrification programme, as this is the only possible conclusion if the science is followed.
Network Rail has received £1 million from the Department for Transport to develop designs for Peckham Rye station, to make it more accessible with more capacity and better facilities for passengers.
Peckham Rye is currently the busiest interchange station in the entire country without step free access to platforms or accessible facilities for passengers. Network Rail’s proposals aim to provide new lifts at the station, making all platforms accessible for parents with buggies, people with shopping and those with mobility issues. Accessible toilets are also part of the scope. To allow for future growth in passengers, access to each of the platforms will be improved and the amount of space on each platform increased.
The project will also consider how the station integrates with the surrounding public realm, particularly the new Station Square, providing better access into the station and a much larger gateline to ease passenger flow.
Andrew Wood, lead development manager at Network Rail, said: “Peckham Rye station is the busiest interchange station in the country without lifts, making it difficult for some passengers to use the station. Passenger numbers today have outgrown the original design, platforms and passageways being too narrow, leading to overcrowding at peaks times.
“We want to make the station accessible to all passengers, improve the overall journey experience, make the station safer and provide capacity for long-term growth.
“We are committed to working closely with train operators, rail passengers, Southwark Council, the Arch Company and the local community to take these proposals forward. Over the next 15 months we will be holding online workshops to involve interested parties in crafting the designs.”
GB Railfreight (GBRf) has announced a new three-year deal with fellow rail freight company DB Cargo UK for them to undertake the maintenance of ten of its Class 60 locomotives, as well as providing technical in-field support.
The focus of the contract will be undertaking regular maintenance whilst driving reliability improvements. The agreement will see GBRf’s engineering team work closely with DB Cargo UK to provide professional engineering support.
GBRf’s fleet of Class 60 locomotives allow heavier and longer trains to run. This brings environmental benefits as longer trains are more efficient. The main duties of the locomotives will be hauling biomass to power stations.
John Smith, managing director of GB Railfreight, said: “I am thrilled to be unveiling this new partnership with DB Cargo UK. At this time of economic uncertainty, it is important for the rail freight sector to work together to deliver investment to support its growth.
“Most importantly, the economic recovery needs to be green and sustainable and by maintaining these locos we will ensure fewer carbon emissions in the long run. I am pleased that rail freight is playing its part in the economic recovery driven by environmentally sustainable investment.”
DB Cargo UK CEO Hans-Georg Werner said: “We are delighted to be working in partnership with our colleagues at GB Railfreight providing high quality maintenance services for their Class 60 locomotives. At DB Cargo UK we pride ourselves on the quality of our engineering, with our key focus being on cost-effective locomotive availability and reliability.”
Work continues on the £1.5 billion upgrade of the Midland main line to improve journeys for all those using the route.
On 4/5 and 11/12 July, Network Rail will commission and test two new substations on the route between Bedford and Ampthill to help to improve resilience on the railway, as well as provide the power needed to allow more trains to run in the future.
Work will also take place to improve the track on the route, as well as to install further overhead line equipment.
Work on £1.5 billion investment into Midland Main Line continues – Passengers urged to check before travelling.
To allow the work over these weekends to take place safely, some lines on the Midland main line will be closed. Network Rail, East Midlands Railway and Govia Thameslink Railway are urging passengers to check before travelling whilst this work takes place.
Gavin Crook, principal programme sponsor for Network Rail, said: “This work is a key part of the Midland Main Line Upgrade, which will bring significant benefits for passengers when complete.
“Over these weekends, we’ll be installing further overhead line equipment, as well as commissioning two new substations, which will help provide more power for the railway.
“We urge people to continue to follow Government guidance, which is to avoid public transport if possible. However, if you must travel, please check before travelling and allow additional time for your journey.”
