Home Blog Page 127

New Era at Doncaster Carr

“You’re in the wrong place, mate.” No, this wasn’t a further comment from the monotone Sat Nav voice that had moments earlier insisted on a left turn onto Ten Pound Walk. Indeed, the destination loomed large enough, right there, over the fence. Network Rail’s adjacent car park, your writer was loudly informed, does not give access. The widened and extended roadway that leads to a security barrier beyond the rows of parked vehicles ought to have provided something of a clue.

Coinciding with the 15 May advent of Intercity Express Programme (IEP) train services running on the East Coast main line, Rail Engineer had been invited to view the train maintenance facilities now in operation at Hitachi Rail’s entirely new Doncaster Carr depot.

Plans

Ten years have gone by since Hitachi Rail became the preferred bidder for the IEP; a programme aiming to procure mainline high-speed intercity trains to replace the aging HST fleet. Contracts were signed in 2012 for the first phase of the project, for trains for the Great Western main line (GWML). Agreement was also reached at that time on a second phase, for the replacement of HSTs and Intercity 225 trains on the East Coast main line (ECML). As part of the ECML contract, Hitachi was required to build a maintenance depot at Doncaster.

The initial specifications for the depot, submitted for planning application in 2010, called for a four-road maintenance shed able to accommodate ten-car trains, which would be 262 metres long. A single road shed would be used for maintaining diesel power cars and there would be facilities for refuelling, wheel re-profiling, carriage washing and toilet emptying.

The plans also included sidings for stabling four full trainsets and twenty half trainsets. Office space and warehousing were also to be included within the main building, which was to measure roughly 300 metres by 55 metres on a site of approximately 13 hectares (32 acres).

Modifications to the plans, submitted in further applications between 2011 and 2013, saw the removal of the separate power car maintenance shed and some of the cleaning facilities. Expected changes in the train timetabling also meant that the siding layout could be reduced to accommodate up to 24 five-car (half) train sets.

The 2013 plans reinstated a bio cleaning pit, extended the enclosed train wash and now included a second mainline connection at the south end of the site.

To state the obvious, the depot was designed to maintain the Hitachi AT300-series Class 800 bi-mode trains and Class 801 electric trains – collectively known as AZUMAs (in Japanese an archaic word for east) – that were to be operated by Virgin Trains East Coast, now of course superseded by LNER. However, the depot would also be used for the maintenance of Class 802 ‘Nova 1’ bi-mode trains operated by TransPennine Express (TPE).

Firmed up

The contract for the second phase of the IEP programme, including the running of trains on the ECML, was finalised in April 2014, allowing the construction of the Doncaster depot to begin. The main contractors were VolkerFitzpatrick, on behalf of Hitachi Rail Europe, with RPS Group acting as the project architects. Costs for the depot works was estimated at about £80 million.

There has been a railway depot located on the site since 1876; originally in the form of a 12-road steam loco shed built by the Great Northern Railway. Modernisation came in the mid 1950s, and, more recently, the facility had become the Doncaster Carr DB Schenker maintenance depot, which was closed in April 2014.

Work to construct the new Hitachi maintenance facility started the following December with the demolition of all existing buildings, the excavation of contaminated soil and the removal of a multitude of vaulted brick arches that had supported the original Doncaster Carr steam sheds on the soft ground (the word carr meaning an area of swamp or fen woodland).

After a century of servicing locomotives, the ground was, unsurprisingly, found to be heavily contaminated. Rather than being transported away, this was successfully treated on site and it was later re-used within the scheme.

Taking the place of the brick arches to support the new 11,000m2 rail maintenance shed and its ancillary buildings, a total of 2,250 CFA (continuous flight auger) piles were sunk. Steelwork, totalling over 1,000 tonnes, for the three main buildings was supplied and installed by Caunton Engineering of Nottingham. Some 26,000m² of cladding was needed to complete the structure of the buildings.

In total it’s reckoned that about 2,000 people worked on the project and that £22 million was spent on locally sourced parts and services from 37 local suppliers.

Nitty gritty

A total of 4km of new trackwork and overhead wire was installed by VolkerRail, which involved 25,000 tonnes of ballast being brought to the site. All of the yard points have point heaters and are power operated using clamp locks controlled from a central location within the office complex. The signalling system was installed by Bombardier, utilising a mix of axle counters and track circuits.

At present, the OLE within the depot area is powered from the local ECML supply. To improve OLE reliability, a second, independent, power supply, serving only the depot, is currently being installed. Completion of the new supply is scheduled for October 2019.

The non-wired fifth road of the maintenance shed is equipped with Mechan lifting jacks that are capable of lifting an entire 10-car train simultaneously. Not surprisingly, this track is called the lifting road. Two Mechan turntables allow bogies to be run out and moved easily into the adjacent workshop areas. There is also a three-road equipment drop, again supplied by Mechan. At present, the intention is to subcontract bogie maintenance off-site, but the facilities exist for this work to be done in-house.

Road 5 also has SchenckProcess Multirail® WheelLoad equipment that can simultaneously measure the individual wheel loadings of a train’s carriages. It is used to ensure equal weight distribution within bogies. The workshop area is also equipped with a Multirail® BogieLoad press that provides vertical force on bogies under test, whilst at the same time measuring the individual wheel loadings.

Within the depot, there are four raised maintenance roads that have overhead line equipment (OLE), monorail hoists and platform level access. The OLE lock off systems for these were provided by ZoneGreen. In addition, high level platforms allow easy access to carriage roof mounted equipment.

Into action

So much for the wherewithal, but how does Hitachi Rail intend to make use of its £80 million investment at Doncaster?

Replenishing screen wash.

Hitachi has responsibility for all aspects of maintenance for the IEP trains running on the ECML. Train cleaning, which includes the charging and emptying of tanks, will be carried out by the train operators or their contractors, but everything else, even the rectification of trivial faults, falls to Hitachi Rail.

On the ECML, maintenance of the new Hitachi trains will be shared between Bounds Green (North London), Craigentinny (Edinburgh) and Doncaster Carr. Bounds Green depot will maintain all thirty Class 801 electric trains, whereas Doncaster is responsible for maintenance of all the Class 800 bi-modes. In addition, nineteen TPE Class 802 ‘Nova 1’ trains will use Doncaster – with Hull Trains’ Class 802s being based at Bounds Green.

Capacity at the depot is measured in half sets – therefore a nine-car set would count as two half sets. Outside there are 14 stabling positions. The equivalent of 12½ Azuma sets return to Doncaster each night for servicing, maintenance or stabling.

Condition

The IEP trains are subject to comprehensive remote condition monitoring (RCM), coupled with a condition-based maintenance regime. This programme attempts to use RCM to link maintenance engineering, reliability in service and maintenance development.

There are essentially two stages to this, the first being the comprehensive testing of the new trains to find out how systems perform and wear. Faults or unexpected wear rates that arise need to be understood so that the maintenance regime can be tailored to eliminate costly failures in service.

Some obvious components that need to be monitored include brake pads, bogie parts, wheel bearings, wheel profiles and wheel wear characteristics. The Hitachi maintenance regime goes much further than this, such that the trains are festooned with sensors. Bearing temperatures, door mechanism performance, engine and transmission parameters are but a few of the items on a long list that are reported. Wi-Fi and 4G can be used to download the data in real time.

Data accrued as the trains operate can then be used to tailor the second stage of the programme: maintenance and overhauls. The more evidence that becomes available on how the systems operate and can potentially fail, the easier it becomes to make sensible decisions on maintenance intervals (for fixed-period servicing) and wear allowances (for condition- based maintenance).

Developing faults will reach a threshold at which an automatic alert is raised. This might for instance be due to a door operating system that isn’t performing to specification. If the failure mode is understood, a decision can then be made on whether to carry out repair work immediately, or on whether the problem can wait until the next scheduled depot visit, or perhaps on whether the train needs to be re-diagrammed in order to bring forward a planned maintenance intervention.

The introduction of a fully condition-based maintenance system is new to Hitachi, both in the UK and in Japan. Ashford depot uses condition-based information to make maintenance decisions on the Hitachi Class 395 fleet, but the IEP programme represents Hitachi’s first fully integrated application of remote condition monitoring and a condition-based maintenance regime.

Bathtub curve

Plot of MTIN and MAA shows the increasing reliability of the fleet.

Rolling stock reliability is measured as Miles per Train Incident (MTIN), in which a delay of over three minutes counts as an incident.

As with any complex engineered system, early component failures are inevitable – teething problems to you and me. As the train delivery phase nears its completion, Hitachi is close to achieving long-term levels of high reliability. In the most recent period, an MTIN figure of 10,308 was achieved and the best to date has been 12,172. The figures fluctuate, but by plotting the Moving Annual Average (MAA) of MTIN the increasing reliability of the fleet is revealed.

Service

As has been widely reported, electromagnetic emissions from the new trains can cause interference to the railway infrastructure, especially to older signalling installations. It is for this reason that services on the ECML are currently operating only between Kings Cross and Leeds. The issue has been attributed to high frequency harmonics in the primary return current, as a consequence of switching the input converters rather than the traction three-phase inverter.

In conjunction with the ORR, both Hitachi Rail Europe and Network Rail are working to eliminate the interference problems. The work involves fitting isolation transformers to signalling equipment and reactances (filters) to the trains – adding an additional weight of about 750kg per affected vehicle. This programme should be complete by August, when the first service trains are scheduled to run to Scotland.

The IEP roll out on the ECML will see 65 new Class 800/801 Azuma trains in operation by the spring of 2020, bringing to an end the 40-year era of HST services and even the displacement of the Class 91 fleet. This represents an important step change, not only in terms of passenger service, but also improved reliability and reduced environmental impact. Within the IEP programme, there has been a lot to deliver – improved infrastructure, a new manufacturing facility at Newton Aycliffe and the investment in new and refurbished maintenance depots across the UK, not to mention the 866 new carriages (122 trains) being manufactured – 369 for the GWML and 497 for the ECML.

That shiny new depot at the end of Ten Pound Walk is vital to the success of the IEP programme on the ECML and, under the terms of the Hitachi Rail contract, will continue to be so for at least the next 27 years.

Except, it seems, for one Rail Engineer writer, it’s very easy to find, down there at the end of Ten Pound Walk. Easier still if you happen to be LNER or TPE with an 800 to service. Most definitely the depot is in the right place for that.

Oh, and what of that curiously named access road? Apparently, it was the route taken by drivers in the days of steam when they collected their weekly pay. Things have certainly changed at Doncaster Carr Depot!

Have you heard the whisper about new developments to WSPER?

Your writer first became aware of WSPER (Wheel Slide Protection Evaluation Rig) in the 1990s. It is a method of carrying out type testing of wheel slide protection systems (WSP) using ‘hardware in the loop’ simulation techniques, which were described by Nigel Wordsworth in issue 123 (January 2015). (see box)

It is notoriously difficult to test WSP systems thoroughly on track. Reliably delivering low adhesion, obtaining sufficient access time and managing the risk of wheel flats are all issues making track testing difficult to organise and, even then, the quantity of data obtained is usually quite limited.

In the late 1980s, BR was experiencing high levels of wheel tread damage on BR-designed WSP equipment and the then brakes engineer, Brian Nicholas, believed there was a better way of testing WSP than by applying soapy water to the track. The need to understand the former provided the opportunity to initially develop the WSPER.

Thus, in 1988/9, WSPER was created by BR Research (sold to AEA Technology and later became DeltaRail). When DeltaRail decided to leave that part of the rail market, the rights to WSPER moved to ESG Rail (now called DB ESG – part of DB Systemtechnik).

Moving forward 30 years, it was on a rather autumnal day in June 2019 that Rail Engineer and other guests visited DB ESG’s office in the Railway Technical Centre (now called RTC Business Park) in Derby to hear about the latest developments with WSPER on, more or less its 30th birthday celebration, and to view the new, bigger and better WSPER facility. Guests included representatives from companies who use WSPER and, as guest of honour, one of WSPER’s founders, John Tunley, who was invited to officially open the new laboratory.

Reminiscing, John Tunley observed that WSPER made it possible to control the parameters affecting the WSP equipment and if, for example, a coefficient of 0.03 was required, it was delivered by WSPER, whilst on the track no one could be absolutely certain of the outcome.

He added that it successfully identified why BR WSP was causing wheel damage, something that had remained a mystery, even with track tests. Modifications were tested to ensure an optimum solution, which was implemented, thereby largely solving the wheel damage problem. John also observed that many hard-bitten brake suppliers were more difficult to convince until they had put their own equipment through its paces on WSPER.

What is “hardware in the loop”?
Wikipedia defines it as “Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation is a technique that is used in the development and test of complex real-time embedded systems. HIL simulation provides an effective platform by adding the complexity of the plant under control to the test platform. The complexity of the plant under control is included in test and development by adding a mathematical representation of all related dynamic systems.”
For wheel slide protection systems, this means simulating the performance of the railway, the adhesion between the wheels and the rails (which varies by location along the line, location along the train and the amount by which the wheels might be slipping), the interaction of the friction and electrodynamic brake where not all axles are motored, the dynamic interaction between vehicles, the behaviour of brake systems, and the inertia of the wheelsets which, again, vary between trailer and motor axles.
WSPER involves connecting the WSP system, including dump valves, and simulating everything else. The complex friction maps were originally obtained from the BR tribometer train in the 1980s, but Stuart Brown seizes every track test opportunity to ensure that those maps remain valid.
Especially with the new developments of 12 car trains, electro-dynamic brakes, sanding and ATO, very considerable computing power is required, although it is ultimately controlled by and displayed on a Windows 10 PC, albeit one with a 4k large-screen monitor.

Developments

Back to the present day and Nick Goodhand, DB ESG’s managing director, introduced principal electrical engineer Stuart Brown, who has been WSPER’s ‘minder’ for nearly 20 of its 30 years. In those 30 years, WSPER has become the standard way of evaluating WSP systems, but the WSP systems and the trains have also changed over time. So, following an overwhelmingly positive customer survey in 2018, DB ESG embarked on a development programme, so that WSPER could cope with:

  • Train control architecture: Train control is becoming more integrated, particularly between individual vehicles and between friction and electro-dynamic braking.
  • Longer formations: WSPER is being modified to accommodate a simulated 12-vehicle, 24-bogie train.
  • ATO: Standard WSPER evaluation is carried out against a given brake demand, such as ‘step 2’. For example, the evaluation might assess the stopping distance for the defined brake demand with different levels of adhesion, or it might evaluate performance for varying brake demand on a consistent friction map. In ATO operation, the brake demand is varied depending on the achieved brake performance, aiming at a target stopping distance, irrespective of adhesion.
  • Sanding: evaluating the impact of braking sanders on WSP and stopping performance, together with the ability to estimate the mass of sand used in a given stop.
  • Electro-dynamic (ED) braking: increasingly, the main service brake on modern trains is ED. This is far from trivial to simulate, especially when not all the axles are motored.
  • Articulated formations: Increasingly being used in the UK, Stuart described work being carried out for the Docklands Light Railway and also for Greater Anglia’s Stadler trains.
  • Kwet: Determination of the Kwet value for homologation of ETCS-fitted trains. Kwet is the factor that defines the deceleration degradation between wet and dry rail conditions for ETCS (whereas Kdry represents the statistical dispersion of braking effort on dry rails).

The laboratory

All these developments are being incorporated into WSPER, which has been moved into much more spacious accommodation in the RTC Business Park in Derby, with three times as much office space and four times as much equipment space. Stuart Brown said he was especially pleased that the noisy compressor is housed elsewhere, leading to a much quieter workplace.

The new laboratory was formally opened by John Tunley on 12 June, who said: “Amazingly, it is now 31 years since we first built the WSPER facility. I am proud that it is still developing and that it is providing an invaluable service to the rail industry.”

Stuart Brown demonstrated the capability of the system. Four test cases were used:

  1. Dry rail, fixed brake demand;
  2. Low adhesion, fixed brake demand;
  3. Low adhesion, fixed brake demand and sanding;
  4. Low adhesion, simulated ATO and sanding.

These tests took about 10 minutes to run; they might have taken several hours on a test track. It was no exaggeration to suggest that hundreds of tests can be carried out in the time it would take to carry out just a few tests on track and, moreover, with no risk of flatting any train wheels. WSPER also avoids having to spend hours setting up the paper tape needed for low adhesion tests.

As the simulations ran, the noise of compressed air venting from the brake components in the equipment room filtered through the door, bringing back memories of Rail Engineer’s visit to RIDC Melton, reported in issue 157 (November 2017), where variable-rate sanders were being tested in low adhesion conditions on a real train!

The results of the tests are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 – simulated stopping distance against brake demand and adhesion.

The sheer complexity, both of the simulation and of brake control, is illustrated by comparing test 1 with test 4. A screen shot from test 1 is shown in figure 2. This shows a velocity:time plot of an intermediate car on a London Underground S Stock train with electrodynamic and friction brakes on clean dry rails with a brake demand of 0.75m/s2. The plot shows the velocity profile of each of the four axles, but, as there is no wheel slide, these profiles are superimposed on the actual velocity.

In comparison, test 4 illustrates a much more complex situation, representing a 0.75m/s2 brake demand on low adhesion.

Figure 2 – Braking in dry conditions.

S stock is a seven-car or eight-car train, with sanders on only two of the cars (the first sander is in front of the trailing bogie on car 2). As not all cars have any or full benefit of sanders, it is necessary to consider each car individually in order to gain a picture of the behaviour of the train.

Four plots are shown in figure 3 – from top left to bottom right – a driving car with no sander benefit, the first intermediate car where only one bogie benefits from the sander, the second intermediate car with a sander and finally the third intermediate car with no sanders. It is immediately obvious that the behaviour of the four wheelsets on each car is different.

Figure 3 – Four plots from the same test. (top left) driving car with no sander, (top right) 2nd car car with one sander, (bottom left) 3rd car car with one sander, (bottom right) 4th car car with no sander positioned after the two sander cars.

An example is illustrated in figure 4, an enlargement of the bottom right plot on figure 3 and is described in more detail. The target velocity, with a slope of 0.75m/s2, is a straight orange line.

The actual speed of the train is the white line above it, showing that the train speed is exceeding the target velocity.

Four “wiggly” lines in cyan, red, green and yellow show individual wheel velocity. As the adhesion is poor, the wheels immediately slow relative to the target velocity, braking more quickly than the train and beginning to slip, provoking WSP activity.

Figure 4 – Enlargement of the bottom right plot from figure 3 with three areas highlighted.

Because of the poor adhesion, the actual velocity (white line) is reducing more slowly than the target velocity. At around four seconds after brake initiation, sanding is initiated (point [a] on the chart) and the slipping wheels almost immediately resume nearly actual train speed.

By about seven seconds, the actual velocity, while higher than target velocity, is decreasing at the same rate [b], but, by about 11 seconds, the ATO realises it needs to increase the brake rate if the target stopping distance is to be achieved and the slope of the white line becomes steeper than the yellow line [c].

This situation is quite complicated to simulate just for one car, but all this interaction is being simulated for each of the seven or eight cars individually. And, whilst target speed remains a constant factor, the brake effort contribution for each of the 28 or 32 axles has to be integrated to calculate the actual train velocity. Moreover, the impact of sander operation on all axles behind them has to be assessed – all being calculated in real time. A very complex simulation!

The ATO test has been a vital part in developing the case for ATO running in the London Underground Metropolitan, District, Circle and Hammersmith and City lines, without having to specify excessively low brake rates. Stuart acknowledged the partnership with Gilbert Rowe, London Underground’s brakes engineer, who has been in the vanguard over the last 20 years of safely and reliably delivering comparatively high brake rates of around 0.7 m/s2 for ATO operation, even under adverse adhesion conditions.

Sanders were a late addition to LU’s S Stock design and there was insufficient space for large sand hoppers, so it was particularly important to minimise sand consumption whilst achieving the required performance. The delivery of the Sanding and ATO modules on WSPER were part of this work, which was validated with extensive testing at RIDC Melton.

In discussion, Gilbert Rowe highlighted the challenge presented by ATP systems using two tachometers on adjacent axles. In poor adhesion conditions, the two axles may end up rotating at different speeds or decelerate at a rate above the value the ATP considers to be feasible. The ATP may then trigger an emergency stop, demanding the highest brake demand, usually in low adhesion conditions, and sometimes leading to flatted wheels.

Could WSP be altered to help and be evaluated by WSPER, Rail Engineer mused?

Stuart advised that this is something that could be considered for the future. This led to a further discussion about using WSPER to evaluate trains where the ATP tachometer(s) are fitted to an unbraked axle, as is increasingly being specified.

Perhaps the last word should go to Stuart Brown, who probably won’t thank me for calling him Mr WSPER: “We are proud to be able to provide our customers with a more comprehensive WSPER package. WSPER has a 30-year pedigree and we are developing the system to meet the future needs of our customers, ensuring that it is the system of choice for the next 30 years.”

A signal from the north

Altnabreac station. ( James Faulkner)

A midsummer event in the far north that provided an indication of the industry’s future was the Friends of the Far North Line (FoFNL) AGM in Brora. This line was a Beeching survivor that has seen its passenger numbers double over the last fifteen years.

The meeting heard proposals for an overnight train from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Thurso and a shuttle service between Thurso and Wick operated by Vivarail’s battery train. There were also presentations from Network Rail’s chairman, Sir Peter Hendy, and Transport Scotland’s director of rail Bill Reeve, both of whom considered the line’s services and gave their perspective on wider industry issues.

Sir Peter reflected on his time running Transport for London (TfL) where, unlike at Network Rail, he was in charge of everything and so could ensure that service improvement investments were the best mix of rolling stock and infrastructure. He liked the way the railway is run in Scotland, which he felt was not unlike what he had at TfL as, in Transport Scotland, there is an intelligent client delivering the Scottish Government’s objectives for a competitive railway that supports the economy.

Both he and Andrew Haines are committed to putting passengers and freight customers first. Hendy explained this needs a regional organisation that gives people sufficiently far down the organisation the empowerment and resources they need. He advised that midsummer weekend was auspicious, as it saw Network Rail’s regional organisations going live.

Bill Reeve welcomed this new organisation which brings together previously geographically spread departments so that all those responsible for the delivery of the Scottish High-Level Output Statement (HLOS) were now working for one Network Rail organisation. He felt that the detailed requirements of the HLOS could be summarised as the ABC of Alignment, Building on success and a Competitive railway.

As an example of alignment, he cited Network Rail’s £1.6 million investment to improve the train service by providing a wheel lathe at ScotRail’s Inverness depot. Reeve felt it was critical that everyone within Network Rail had a shared idea of “what good is”. In his experience, the lack of alignment in delivering a railway that customers want has been a significant problem.

Reeve is proud of what has been achieved in Scotland. He is also passionate about having a railway that provides attractive services for passengers and freight companies in an efficient manner. Such a competitive railway, he felt, was well placed to deliver social inclusion and climate change objectives.

Hendy noted how last year’s timetable debacle highlighted how it was wrong for the Secretary of State to be the only person responsible for the whole railway and, as a result, the DfT is an extraordinary centralised department. This led to the independent review by Keith Williams, which is to report in the Autumn. Hendy and Reeve are clearly aligned in their thinking and have been closely involved in this review. Although neither can predict the review’s conclusions, it would be surprising if these did not reflect their views.

Midsummer also saw the installation of the first ElectroLogIXS electronic signal interlocking at Feltham. Paul Darlington explains why this new type of interlocking will bring significant capital and operational savings, in part by dramatically reducing the number of relays required and halving the lineside equipment locations.

This summer also saw a new 1.4 km loop brought into service on the single-line Felixstowe branch which carries the UK’s highest rail freight tonnage. As David Bickell describes, this involved significant signalling works with four level crossings upgraded and six closed requiring the provision of a bridleway bridge.

Earthing such signalling equipment whilst ensuring continuity of power supplies is a complex issue, especially as some legacy power supplies did not meet current legislative standards. Our feature explains Network Rail’s strategy for ensuring compliance.

Peter Stanton was at a recent joint RIA/IMechE seminar to rebuild confidence in electrification. His report explains how this made the case for electrification and showed how recent successful schemes which have incorporated lessons from previous problematic projects.

Following the introduction of Hitachi’s Azuma trains on the East Coast main line, Stuart Marsh describes how these trains are maintained at the new £80 million Doncaster Carr depot. New types of trains are not always greeted with acclaim, due to complaints about hard seats. An RSSB research project is addressing this issue by developing objective seat comfort criteria, as our article describes.

New trains also put new demands on wheel slide protection (WSP) systems which, for 30 years, have been evaluated by WSPER (WSP evaluation rig). Malcom Dobell was invited to Derby to see WSPER in its new laboratory and explains how new developments are being incorporated into this complex test rig.

As Nigel Wordsworth describes, a huge amount of construction plant was on display at Plantworx and Railworx, with almost 500 exhibitors’ displays spread out over the 140,000 square metres of the East of England Arena.

For ten years the Rail Partnership Awards have celebrated and showcased the achievements of Network Rail’s supply chain which, as our feature shows, includes great examples of collaborative working. This would seem to contrast with the need for better alignment between Government and the different parts of the rail industry.

Rail Engineer July 2019: WSPER, Partnership Awards, Railworx, Felixstowe, Barnard’s Lock, Doncaster Carr.

Aachen wins IMechE Railway Challenge

IMechE Railway Challenge 2019 - Aachen.

For the first time, a foreign team has won the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Railway Challenge competition.

Organised by the IMechE’s Railway Division, the Railway Challenge provides a great opportunity for aspiring teams to compete in a challenging industry-specific competition, showcasing their skills, expertise, knowledge, and business acumen. Participants are required to design and manufacture a miniature (10¼” gauge) railway locomotive in accordance with a set of strict rules and a detailed technical specification.

The locomotives are then tested over a single weekend at the Stapleford Miniature Railway in Leicestershire, where several category winners and an overall Railway Challenge champion are announced.

The 2019 Challenge, the eighth in the series, saw 14 teams enter. Of these, 10 actually produced finished locomotives that would run at Stapleford.

The weekend started with scrutineering and a couple of days of final testing. On the hottest day of the year, several teams had trouble with their electronics.  In two cases, they were terminal problems, leaving eight teams to turn out on the Sunday, which still made for a good day’s running.

IMechE Railway Challenge 2019 – Ricardo Rail.

The weather was cooler on finals day. 2018 winner Ricardo Rail went first, followed by FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, the German team making its third appearance at Stapleford.

New for this year was the Auto-Stop Challenge. Competitors had to pass a marker at a good speed, and the loco then had to automatically bring itself to a stop between two further markers. Distance from the second maker was what would count, overshooting the third would be a fail.

Much ingenuity was displayed for the ‘trip’ mechanism, which was entirely down to each team. Reflective panels (aluminium foil stretched over cardboard, or a reflector off a caravan), lumps of metal used as metal ‘balises’ and even the insides of someone’s TV remote control were all used. All very clever stuff!

Except – sometimes it wasn’t.  One team braked early – a false trigger?  Several overran – they had calibrated the braking distance using a full train then taken the test with a lighter, empty one.  It was a learning curve, and most teams struggled. Never mind – they’ll be better next year.

IMechE Railway Challenge 2019 – Transport for London.

The other tests had all be experienced, and reported in Rail Engineer, before. Energy recovery – brake to a standstill then proceed using just the recovered energy. Ride comfort. Traction – how quickly can the loco climb a steep hill from a standing start – and then how much Noise does it make doing it?

Some of the results were startling.  Several locos sailed up the hill while one, perhaps running on a reduced number of motors due to the electronic problems of the day before, had to be recovered by Stapleford’s chase loco near the top.

In the maintainability challenge, in which teams had to remove a complete wheelset quickly and safely, one team did it in less than three minutes while another took almost half an hour.

Then there were the ‘behind close doors’ presentations.  Each team had to write a paper on the Innovation it was using, present a Business Case and explain its Design concepts. There was no right or wrong answer, and the judges awarded points based on their own judgement.

Teams also had to design posters highlighting the unique features of their designs. These were displayed over the weekend and judged by both officials and the public.

But it was the locos running on track that drew the crowds, on a glorious sunny, yet not-too-hot, day.  Then a marquee full of people gathered to hear the results.

Chief judge Bill Reeve, otherwise Director of Rail for Transport Scotland – “in his spare time”, as he put it – reviewed performances and invited various judges and personalities to award the certificates.

The winners of each category were:

  • Auto stop: FH Aachen University of Applied Science
  • Energy Storage Challenge:  FH Aachen University of Applied Science
  • Maintainability Challenge: Bombardier / University of Derby
  • Traction Challenge: Ricardo Rail
  • Reliability Challenge: Jointly – University of Sheffield and Bombardier / University of Derby
  • Ride Comfort Challenge:  FH Aachen University of Applied Science
  • Noise Challenge: Bombardier / University of Derby
  • Innovation Challenge: University of Warwick (which didn’t run but had submitted a cracking report)
  • Business Case Challenge: Transport for London
  • Design Challenge: Jointly – Transport for London and SNC-Lavalin
  • Poster Challenge: SNC-Lavalin
  • Poster popular vote: SNC-Lavalin
  • Special award for ingenuity and elegance in mechanical design: PUTrain University of Poznan – an announcement that drew enthusiastic applause.

The overall awards came last. Third, with a total of 1,099 points, was 2018 winner Ricardo Rail.

Only one point further ahead, on 1,100 points, was the team that won in 2016 and 2017, Transport for London.

But the winner, by the proverbial country mile and with 1,389 points, was Aachen – the competition’s first foreign winner.

IMechE Railway Challenge 2019 – The Aachen team celebrate their win.

There was much Germanic celebration, and huge smiles, and everyone congratulated a team that had to travel for seven hours to its nearest test track and then cross the channel to compete.

Well done Aachen!

An evening of goodbyes as Gordon Wakeford retires from the Rail Supply Group

The Rail Supply Group staged a reception at the London Transport Museum on Monday 17 June, ostensibly to mark the retirement of Gordon Wakeford, who has stepped down as both CEO of Siemens Mobility in the UK and as co-chairman of the RSG.

But, as often happens on these occasions, there was more to it than that.

Gordon started off proceedings by recapping some of the things that had happened on his watch. Most memorable was the Rail Sector Deal, a collaboration between government and the rail industry that aims to both make the railway more efficient and also boost exports.

“The sector deal will be transformational. It’s a deal that builds upon the here and now but, importantly, lifts our heads to the future, five to ten years hence, where we will change the landscape,” he said.

Returning to a theme he started at Railtex recently, where he spoke in the Rail Engineer Seminar Theatre, Gordon revised the wording of the Beach Boys’ hit ‘Wouldn’t It Be Nice’ to include the vision he and the RSG have developed for the industry.

Thankfully, nobody sang.

Gordon paid tribute to the team that had delivered the rail sector deal, and singled out Anna Delvecchio of Amey: “I really wish to wholeheartedly thank Anna Delvecchio for all of her hard work and dedication over the last three years where she has steadfastly acted as programme director, driving us all forward for the common cause. Anna, the RSG would not be where it is today without your perseverance.”

Anna is also stepping down from the role of project co-leadfor the sector deal, being replaced by Neil Ridley, formerly with the Railway Industry Association and the Transport Systems Catapult, and now managing director of Transport Genesis. However, she will still head the workgroup on productivity.

As a surprise, during a tour of the museum with Rail Minister Andrew Jones and Network Rail chairman and museum trustee Sir Peter Hendy, in the section ‘Untangling the Tracks’, Anna was shown a plaque on the wall that featured – Anna Delvecchio!

Anna Delvecchio with her plaque on the London Transport Museum.

It has been placed on display in the museum, alongside those of historical transport figures such as Hannah Dadds (first female train driver on London Underground), Ellen Bulfield (one of the female conductors on London’s buses during World War 1 and the last to hand her job back to a returning male conductor once the war ended) and Joy Jarvis (designer of the tube’s ‘moquette’ seating fabric in the 1940s), in honour of Anna’s work, both in developing the Rail Sector Deal and her leading work promoting diversity and inclusion across the industry. She has also been made a patron of the London Transport museum.

“I am incredibly humbled and grateful to the Rail Supply Group and the London Transport Museum for this incredible gesture,” she said afterwards. “I am more committed than ever to continue what I have started and make the transport profession a more inclusive place for all.”

Gordon Wakeford had one last role to play, introducing Atkins president Philip Hoare, who is taking over as co-chair of the RSG. Unable to attend, Philip addressed the meeting over the internet from North America. He thanked Gordon for his leadership and enthusiasm and also thanked the RSG Council.

Niall Mackenzie, director at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, spoke of the government’s satisfaction at the delivery of the rail sector deal, and then Sir Peter Hendy presented two retirement presents.

Gordon Wakeford (left) is presented with a distant signal by Sir Peter Hendy.

The first went to Gordon Wakeford, who received a distant semaphore signal, and then Sir Peter presented a home signal arm to David Waboso, who recently retired as head of Network Rail’s Group Digital Railway but also from the RSG board.

David Waboso receives a home signal from Sir Peter Hendy.

It may have been an evening of goodbyes, but it also celebrated how strong the rail industry can be when it works together.

CAF wins DLR train order

CAF wins DLR train order

CAF has been awarded the contract to design, manufacture and supply a fleet of 43 trains for the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) by Transport for London (TfL). The contract will include a Fleet Support Agreement to provide technical support services and spares supply.

Based on CAF’s successful Metro vehicle design, the new five-car trains enter passenger service from 2023.

Thirty-three of the trains will replace DLR’s oldest rolling stock which is nearly thirty years old and 10 will increase frequency and capacity across the network.

The new trains will be a similar length to the current three-car trains currently operating on the DLR, but they will provide a number of improvements. These include the latest audio and visual real-time travel information, air-conditioning, mobile device charging points, multi-use areas – which can accommodate pushchairs, bicycles and luggage – and dedicated wheelchair spaces.

New CAF train for DLR.

CAF’s UK director Richard Garner commented: “We are delighted to be awarded such a significant contract by Transport for London to supply trains for the UK’s busiest light railway. CAF’s Metro vehicle design is ideally placed to meet the specific demands of this unique operation, not only increasing passenger capacity, but delivering the very latest in comfort, convenience and safety for passengers. These trains will support the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy to make London a greener, more accessible place to live, work and visit as well as supporting new jobs and homes.

“It is the latest in a number of recent awards including the supply and maintenance of DMU’s for the Wales and Borders Franchise, the rehabilitation of 43 RER MI2N units for the Paris Metro network and the supply and maintenance of 29 regional diesel-electric units for the Australian state of New South Wales.”

The 5 bidders for HS2 train order reveal their designs

Five organisations are bidding for a contract to design, manufacture and maintain the trains for the first phase of HS2.

The original list was Alstom, Bombardier, Hitachi, Siemens and Talgo. When Bombardier and Hitachi decided to make a joint bid, CAF was added to the list to maintain five bidders.

The first phase, for at least 54 trains to run on both HS2 and the ‘classic’ network, is likely to be ordered in Spring 2020 with a contract value of around £2.75 billion.

Although graphics of the new designs have been released, technical details have been withheld, but the field includes a range of new designs and adapted existing platforms.

Alstom

Alstom’s proposed design for HS2.

A new design, although based on existing technology, Alstom’s UK managing director Nick Crossfield commented: “Alstom’s vision is to make HS2 trains a timeless design classic, with a passenger experience that is as smooth, calm and spacious as it is high-speed.”

Bombardier/Hitachi

Bombardier and Hitachi have collaborated on a joint bid.

This partnership has already delivered the Frecciarossa (Red Arrow) ETR1000 for Trenitalia in 2015, which is the fastest yet quietest in-service high-speed train in Europe. Operating at speeds up to 225 mph, it has “transformed passenger experience and connectivity across Italy”.

CAF

CAF’s offer is based on its Oaris design.

CAF has stated that its offer to HS2 is based on its Oaris platform. CAF UK director Richard Garner said: “The Oaris platform uses the latest technology to offer high-speed travel and has demonstrated its capacity to operate at speeds over 360 km/h – combined with the advantages of proven reliability, comfort and safety.”

Siemens

Siemens’ Velaro family is already operational is several countries.

Siemens’ Velaro family of high-speed trains is already in operation in Spain, China, Russia, Germany and the UK, where its Eurostar e320 fleet runs at 320km/h.

William Wilson, CEO of Siemens Mobility, said: “Our team has worked tirelessly to develop an offer that transforms how passengers experience high speed trains and set the standard for other global high-speed rail systems to follow.”

Talgo

Talgo has suggested an Avril design to HS2.

Talgo has based its offer for the supply of trains to HS2 on Avril – its latest generation rolling stock platform. This represents the latest evolution of very high-speed vehicles, which has been developed over several decades using experience gained from supplying trains to Spain, Saudi Arabia and Central Asia.

Talgo UK’s Jon Veitch commented: “HS2 will be crucial as the UK economy grows. We humbly believe that Talgo’s combination of experience and adaptivity is the best option for both train operating companies and taxpayers.”

Who will win?

That’s anyone’s guess.  All five companies have the pedigree. Bombardier and Hitachi already have factories in the UK that could build these trains tomorrow, so they must be strong contenders as splitting the volumes between the two locations would make the quantities more manageable and keep the work in the UK.

Siemens is building a factory in Goole to build London Underground’s deep-tube trains – but would it get two major contracts or would the DfT want to spread orders around?

CAF’s new factory in Wales is now in operation, as is Alstom’s technical centre in Widnes, and Talgo has said it would like to build a factory here.

So let’s see, in one year’s time we should know…

ATO – Exploiting the technology

Automatic Train Operation (ATO) is nowadays a given technology for metro operation and, although it is still in its infancy when applied to main lines, it is often a chosen option for self-contained industrial or freight railways. But is ATO being used to maximum advantage and what are the criteria for optimising the benefits?

A recent seminar staged in London by the IMechE and the IRSE was aimed at creating a better understanding of ATO, not only its technology but how it needs to be integrated into other systems. Some of the output proved revealing.

The London Underground perspective

George Clark, the director of TfL Engineering and the recently elected President of the IRSE, reminded everyone that the ATO story began on LU when the newly constructed Victoria line was commissioned between 1968/71. This was ground-breaking technology in those days, especially as the system used was invented in house. Based around different frequency-coded track circuits, the system was operational for over 40 years, which is a testament to its good design and maintainability. The system was, however, just that – an ATO application that optimised the driving of trains.

Things have moved on since then and LU now uses modern CBTC (computer-based train control) systems on most of its lines which incorporate ATO functionality. Such systems demand a co-ordinated approach between signal and rolling stock engineers, with the civils fraternity needing to be heavily involved so as to get the right track layouts in support of automated operation.

Over and above the engineering, the train-service planners and operations managers have to decide what kind of train service they want – it is from their decisions that the functional and engineering specifications will be derived.

Whilst ATO is delivering enhanced capacity and safety with maximum acceleration and optimised braking rates, other factors have to be taken into account, particularly if the railway is in an outside environment. Knowing every train’s position is essential for safe ATO operation and this can be a challenge where climate conditions and vegetation affect adhesion. The need for rail lubrication on curves and altered braking rates when rails are wet or contaminated are part of a modern ATO specification.

Closer adherence to the timetable means linkage to either a traffic management system or ARS (Automatic Regulation System) to achieve a design that extends to the margins of operation. The driver (in reality, a train operator) must be assured the system is functioning correctly.

Modern ATO systems require huge quantities of data transfer as part of monitoring performance, predicting maintenance, linking to information systems and updating asset databases, so Big Data and IoT must be part of the communication package. Lastly, as LU has successfully achieved with the Victoria line upgrade (now operating at 36 trains per hour in each direction), sooner or later an ATO system will require an upgrade or replacement and a means of achieving this without service disruption should be part of the initial system design.

ATO test train.

ATO on the main line

Introducing ATO on to a main line railway is several degrees more difficult. However, two linked successes can recently be chalked up. The biggest of these is the completed development of layering an ATO package onto an ETCS-equipped railway, the second is the deployment of such a system on the London Thameslink central core section. Press releases claim this latter as a main line first but, in truth, it is more akin to a metro operation with the same type of trains all stopping at the same stations. Nonetheless, it is a milestone and Imtithal Aziz from Network Rail described the need for an ATO package in order to achieve 24tph. It took five years of work to develop and test the system including live running on the Network Rail Hertford Loop test track at Watton-at-Stone.

The UK can be rightly proud of this March 2018 achievement that, no doubt, will be the basis for many more ATO systems in Europe and worldwide. The need to define what has to be added to ATO for it to meet the objectives emerged along the way, starting with an understanding of the Grade of Automation (GoA) levels now set down as standards. These are:

  • GoA 1 – Manual Train Operation but including C-DAS (Connected Driver Advisory System);
  • GoA 2 – Driver Attended ATO (as LU operates its ATO lines);
  • GoA 3 – Driverless Train Operation (akin to Docklands Light Railway where a ‘Passenger Service Agent’ – sometimes called a train captain – is retained);
  • GoA 4 – Unattended Train Operation (UTO) with no member of staff on board (Lausanne Metro for example).

Examples of all these exist across the world, so the technology is already established. More difficult is the public acceptance of, especially, GoA 4 and what happens if a train fails or an accident occurs. Network Rail, for the present, has decided to stop at GoA 2, since it is likely that any ATO operation only covers part of a route, with normal driving taking over for some of the journey.

ATO supervision.

To achieve an optimum journey experience with timetable adherence, optimum performance, maximum capacity and good safety will require other technical systems to be added in. Traffic Management is vital since accurate train regulation is required, particularly if an ATO railway has multiple junctions and routes. On Thameslink, where the TMS has yet to be completed, a 30-second update of timetable to each train is proving insufficient and real time updating is now regarded as necessary. This, in turn, demands a very high data exchange rate to every train, something that is beyond the capacity of the present GSM-R system. Thus, a replacement 4G or 5G radio link may take on more urgency with Wi-Fi enhancements likely to be included as well.

C-DAS is equally important for GoA 2, ideally integrating this with ETCS and ATO on to the driver’s DMI screen. Even for GoA 3 and 4, the C-DAS data may be used as the input commands for the ATO operation.

Other challenges include the definition and location of timing points, automatic or manual door opening releases, train despatch procedure, station stopping positions for different length trains, transition arrangements between ATO and non-ATO operation, interfaces to the train propulsion and braking systems, and keeping the track data base information updated on the train system.

The European Shift2Rail and TEN-T programmes are incorporating ATO requirements and the ERA (European Railway Agency, now renamed European Union Agency for Railways) will be building ATO into the ERTMS/ETCS specifications. Network Rail will be considering how ATO can be accommodated into its Hybrid ETCS Level 3 concept.

ATO as a means of predictable and efficient operation

Having a supplier’s viewpoint is always useful, because they tend to have a wider perspective as to what is going on. Thomas Godfrey from Bombardier confirmed that ATO is very mature in the metro sector, many of which run as UTO. However, most systems are proprietary, with only high-level standards giving general guidance on technical requirements. The IEEE Standard 1474.1, dating from 2004 but with several updates since then leading to CBTC operation, has enabled considerable innovation.

Heavy haul freight traffic in the industrial sector has benefitted from ATO, but extending this to mixed traffic lines is much more complex owing to the many types of services and speeds. UNISIG, the industrial consortium which was created to develop the ERTMS/ETCS technical specifications, is producing an ‘ATO over ETCS’ TSI (Technical Specification for Interoperability) and Network Rail is known to be working on national standards for ATO with the risk that deviating from any international standards will invariably increase costs.

An ATO model will consist of both trackside and train-borne elements and must include TMS for constant updating of regulation schedules, plus balise positioning, GSM-R and speed probes on axles. Speed measurement and accuracy is essential for successful ATO.

The initial Chinese experience of ATO led to a jerky ride owing to delays in system response to commands, but this has now been evened out.

Any GoA 3 or 4 application will need creep facilitation, automatic sleep and wake-up commands for effective berthing, automatic joining or splitting of trains and automatic detrainment in the event of an incident. Some of these present real challenges.

The logistics of ETCS rollout will limit ATO usage as route fitment will lag behind equipping the trains. In the UK, some routes, such as C2C, Merseyrail and parts of the Glasgow suburban network, will be easier than others. A cut down ATO application for automated door opening and assisted braking may be a more practical proposition elsewhere.

Making an ATO railway work

Even when ATO is introduced, there are many operational issues to be sorted out. Pradeep Vasudev, technical director at WSP, outlined the key interfaces that are demanded. A structured approach based on experience needs to consider that, whilst the signalling effectively drives the train, what role does the driver have, if indeed there is one? Door operation, start up commands, degraded mode operation, all need to be decided. Semi-automated disruption planning is more difficult – recovering a failed train might mean signalling a second train into the occupied section to couple up and push forward, not an easy concept for signal engineers.

Operations has effectively entered the Systems domain and must consider:

  • Operational change including disruption management;
  • Technical integration, including connectivity and software management;
  • Programme integration including migration methodology and operator readiness.

Migration from an old ATO to a new ATO system is challenging and the experience of the Victoria line in London could become a template for others. It involved lots of sub-projects and key milestones for both track-based and train-borne equipment.

The new trains on order for Glasgow Subway.

GoA 4 and the Glasgow Subway

The Glasgow underground railway, which basically has a circular route, is being modernised. This includes new trains, improved stations, depot upgrade and a commitment to GoA 4 UTO operation. Stadler is supplying the trains, working with Hitachi STS to deliver the complete system. It is a complex migration and Stefan Rosendahl explained the challenges.

The 17 new trains will be an articulated four-car design, with the end coaches having two bogies and the shorter middle cars having just one. Walk-through access and information screens are to be provided, along with help points. Maximum speed will be higher (58km/h), capacity will be 110 seats and the intended frequency will be 16tph in rush hours. The Hitachi CBTC product will form the basis of the ATO, including aerials and speed sensors. Platform screen doors (PSD) will be part of the GoA 4 package.

Migration from old to new is the biggest challenge, as the Glasgow authorities wish to maintain a service during the implementation period. This means equipping the new trains with a temporary driver’s area, so that old and new trains can run simultaneously to the existing GoA 2 operation. Once all the new trains are in service, a ‘lift up’ driving desk will replace the temporary driver’s console and UTO can be initiated.

CCTV recording of all passenger activity in every car is a requirement, as is on-demand monitoring of images at the central control room. This, in itself, requires a large bandwidth from the track-to-train communications link.

A 2’ out of 3’ redundancy design for the vital equipment is required to meet safety and reliability requirements. Ten possible operating modes are foreseen, ranging from manual driving, in both forward and reverse directions, through to UTO operation. One requirement is for a second train to rescue a failed train.

Many eyes will be watching this exciting development as implementation approaches.

ATO for HS2

When HS2 is complete, it is expected to take much of the traffic from the West Coast, Midland and East Coast main lines, in part due to the requirement to free up capacity at the London end of these lines. Hence 18 tph is required on the London to Birmingham section, which demands an ATO solution. Tight timetable compliance, with boarding and alighting aimed at two minutes and only a 30 second delay allowed on all services, makes HS2 akin to a high-speed metro – so says Ben Rule, the director of operations.

ATO will enable a high consistency of driving but will include the ability to manipulate the train service for gaps if things go wrong and allow for processes such as an emergency stop. Trains will be ‘flighted’ in three or four-minute groups and, whilst capable of 360kph, will normally not go this fast unless a catch-up situation arises.

Many trains on HS2 will also run on the conventional rail network, which is where the biggest source of delay will originate. Current long-distance services from the north of England and Scotland will divert to HS2 to free up capacity on existing routes, especially the West Coast main line. Once on HS2, the line controller effectively becomes the driver of the train, so as to ensure optimum regulation.

Carine Marin, the acting head of control and communications engineering at HS2, advised that no ATO high-speed product is yet available but anticipates that the GSM-R replacement (FRMCS) will be developed by then. This, when coupled to TMS and GPRS, will allow a suitable ATO package to be produced. A CCS laboratory will be provided to model and demonstrate the system, but a long and robust testing and commissioning plan is envisaged.

Adhesion management

Different weather and climate conditions can play havoc to an intensely used railway, so they have to be considered. Phil Dubery, from CPC Systems, informed that positional uncertainty can lead to a see-saw action of propulsion and braking in an ATO railway if conditions are bad. Dropping the brake rate from 0.7 to 0.4 will lead to a 12-second delay for every station stop.

Having a management plan to deal with this is important. The production of a real-time adhesion map is one solution, so information relating to locations where trains will struggle and the associated data on environment, gradient and weather can then link into TMS and ATO intelligence. Provision and observance of temporary speed restrictions could become part of this map.

Hong Kong Metro..

Evolution of ATO in Hong Kong and Singapore

TC Chew, now with Arup’s global rail business but well-known for his work to develop metro systems in the Far East, suggested some fundamentals in the development of an ATO-operated railway. Hong Kong, with its 11 lines, 223km of route (including the now-integrated KCR railway) and five million passengers per day, modelled its first ATO application on London’s Victoria line. The replacement with more modern systems is well under way, with some lines now operating a GoA 4 system.

Singapore Metro has six lines, building to 330km of route by 2030 and three million passengers per day. It also is updating its ATO systems, but originally opted to retain a ‘front’ driver. This decision has been reversed and four lines now operate to GoA 4.

It is important to understand that customers don’t care about the system, they just need to get from A to B reliably and safely. Both HK and Singapore aim for 99.9 per cent running on time. Funding is crucial and must embrace staff, equipment, failures, emergencies and all associated subsystems.

Both networks have recently experienced embarrassing accidents that caused collisions. Some operators demand that a backup system must be in place in case of ATO failure. In HK, a backup to the backup was also specified, and that caused data irregularities at the interfaces, resulting in the collision. The need for a backup is a contentious issue, but opinion is moving towards investing in reliability for the prime system.

Some misconceptions of a GoA 4 railway need to be exposed. Loss of jobs need not happen, as staff should be redeployed to passenger-assistance tasks. Fear amongst passengers is a myth, as they are not left to their own devices if an incident occurs. The cost of a fully automatic system should not be significantly higher than one where staff are retained.

The two big challenges for GoA 4 are how to bring a failed train to the next station and the need for batteries for emergency propulsion if power is lost. Solve these two and there is no stopping a fully automatic technology.

It is clear that there is much more to successful automatic operation than just buying an ATO package. A final discussion raised some further thoughts that will need consideration over time: industrial relations, artificial intelligence, moving block, timetable initiation, driver training, managing the infrastructure and rolling stock divide. Maybe another seminar in two or so years’ time will have answers to these.

Enabling better performance

For the past six years, the national rail public performance measure (PPM) has fallen steadily each year from 91.0 per cent in 2013 to 85.6 per cent in 2018. According to Transport Focus, the three main causes of passenger dissatisfaction are this fall in punctuality, increased fares and not being able to get a seat on a train. These are also the reasons why many consider that the current railway structure isn’t working and, indeed, some feel that nationalisation is the answer.

Against this background, the government commissioned the Williams review to consider the future structure of the industry. Although there is a political desire to change things for the better, improving punctuality requires much more than restructuring.

Each year, the UK railway network carries 1.7 billion passengers. Historically, the last time such numbers were carried was in 1920, when the railway network was twice its current size. To carry such numbers each day, UK rail operates 22,000 services. The complex interactions between these services on a crowded railway allow little time for service recovery. As a result, 70 per cent of all delays are now reactionary. Running a punctual railway has never been so difficult.

Data Sandbox

To enable potential researchers to familiarise themselves with the available data, RSSB created a ‘data sandbox’ which included datasets from various organisations as shown below. The intention is to make these available as a long-term industry resource soon.

  • Attributed Delay Data;
  • Performance Metrics;
  • Network Rail Open Feeds including SCHEDULE (daily extracts and updates of train schedules), MOVEMENT (train positioning and movement event data), TD (train positioning data at signalling berth level), TSR (Temporary Speed Restrictions), VSTP (Very Short-Term Plan), RTPPM (Real-Time Public Performance Measure) and Train Planning Network Model;
  • TD (train describer) data from Dec 2016 – May 2017;
  • TRUST data from Dec 2016 – May 2017;
  • GPS feeds;
  • Upon request station, line speed, and tonnage data.

Rail Delivery Group (RDG)

  • Darwin – real-time arrival and departure predictions and platform numbers;
  • Knowledgebase – National Rail Enquiries database;
  • Online Journey Planner;
  • LENNON – ticketing and revenue database;
  • National Rail Enquiries (NRE) data feeds.

Various train operators

  • Genius – diagrams and allocations of trains data;
  • Bugle – description and cause of delays;
  • On-Train Data Recorder – station dwells and journey events;
  • Traffic Management System data;
  • Train describer data;
  • Nexla and Orbita – train health, door opening/interlock times and energy consumption data;
  • Web Gemini – train formation data;
  • Passenger numbers – airbag and passenger count data;
  • Reservations/ ticket sales.

Southeastern Railway

  • Unit movements data;
  • Driver compliance System Retrieved Data;
  • Warning Systems Data;
  • Visual Cab 1 screenshot.

Transport Systems Catapult

  • Mapping Grids (upon request);
  • Mobile network data (upon request);
  • National roadworks data (upon request);
  • Haulage journeys data (upon request).

Met Office

  • Weather data

Improving operations

For these reasons, it could be said that poor punctuality that resulted in 15 billion delay minutes last year is an inherent feature of today’s railway. Yet something must be done. This is certainly the view of Network Rail’s new chief executive. Andrew Haines, who is committed to putting passengers first, has placed greater emphasis on train operations and is introducing a regional organisation to bring decision-making closer to customers.

To improve train performance, a National Task Force has been set up which brings together passenger and freight operators, Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation and the Department for Transport. The work of this task force has three overarching themes: better timetables, better assets and better operations.

An important aspect of improving operations is ensuring that rules for disrupted working are fit for purpose. This requires them to take account of modern communications and relatively new failure modes such as axle-counter failures. Rules also need to consider the overall system risk and so should not regard a stationary train as the safest situation, as crowded trains stopped for a long time introduce their own risks such as passengers evacuating themselves and crowded platforms. For this reason, slicker methods of degraded working are required.

This review of operational rules is one of the workstreams of the Enabling Better Network Performance Research Challenge (PERFORM) which is a cross-industry initiative led by RSSB. The other aspects are rail operations and variability (such as dwell time), understanding performance trends, managing disruption and getting value from the enormous amount of operational data that is generated each day. This was the subject of a £500,000 call for research in October for which a data sandbox was made available to interested participants.

Tim Shoveller gives his keynote address.

Introducing PERFORM

The PERFORM programme was launched at RSSB’s recent “Enabling Better Network Performance” conference, which was attended by 150 delegates from industry, academia and the supply chain. In the opening keynote address, Tim Shoveller, then managing director of Stagecoach’s Rail Division (now managing director of Network Rail’s new North West and Central route), emphasised that the unprecedented performance challenges faced by the industry could only be solved by collaborative working. He was followed by Justin Willett, RSSB’s professional lead for operations and performance, who explained the PERFORM programme’s background, structure and governance.

The conference’s solution sessions included presentations from the five industry/academia teams that had been granted research funding from the October data sandbox research competition to develop novel data-driven solutions to improve network performance. There were also reports on other operations initiatives. After a discussion on how the industry should work together to improve performance, a further data sandbox research competition was launched.

Sandbox winners

Of the five research projects granted data sandbox funding, three concerned the impact of reactionary delays and two explored how machine learning could reduce station dwell times, which can be subject to wide variations. However, as these are generally less than the three-minute threshold, they are not usually monitored, even though they can have a significant impact on train performance.

The software being developed by the University of East Anglia, with support from Greater Anglia, will forecast how trains on the network are likely to be affected by current events and takes account of consequential impact on train crew availability. This will be used to help train controllers determine the knock-on effects of primary delays.

The development of a decision support tool using neural network technology to model reactionary delays is the research project led by Liverpool John Moores University, in collaboration with Merseyrail. The third reactionary delay project is a method to visualise the cause and consequence of knock-on delays under different scenarios to understand the delay dependency between locations. This is being developed by City, University of London and Risk Solutions, with support from Great Western Railway.

Using machine learning to analyse train performance data to the second is the aim of a project led by Middlesex University, with support from Southeastern. This is integrating the vast amount of available raw data to model train operation that will provide useful information to engineers and operators to enable them to act to reduce delays.

Artificial intelligence is also being used by a team led by University of Southampton, in collaboration with South Western Railway. It is using a range of data sources to develop a real-time visualised alert system which could identify unexpected sites that could be targeted for mitigation measures.

An interesting point raised in the discussion about these initiatives is the impact on passengers from actions taken to recover the service, which can include skip stopping and terminating services before their end destination. As such actions can cause significant disruption to some passengers, minimising train disruption does not necessarily minimise overall passenger disruption. However, the conference was advised that the research to determine the best operational strategy to recover from service disruption is not considering the impact on passengers adversely affected by actions to recover the service.

Typical wide variation in station dwell time.

ADCI, RAATS and T1135/54

Other performance improving projects described at the conference were automated driver competence indicators (ADCI), considering red signal approaches, improving operational decision making and planning for disruption.

The ADCI project is being trialled by LNER and c2c and is based on data analysis by the University of Huddersfield using software developed by Cogitare that is now ready for industry roll out. It aims to use on-train data recorders to assess driving technique in respect of safety, energy consumption and punctuality. It will provide an app to enable drivers to assess their own performance and enables targeted support to be provided to individual drivers. The project will also identify common performance issue along the driver’s route.

The industry has done much to reduce signals passed at danger (SPADs) which, until recently, were normalised by train miles. A more meaningful approach considers how many red signal approaches result in SPADs. To facilitate this, the University of Huddersfield has developed the web based RAATS tool (Red Aspect Approaches To Signals) which uses the train describer data available under Network Rail’s open data initiative. As well as improving SPAD analysis, RAATS provides valuable performance data by, for example, showing where red signals routinely delay trains.

RAATS analysis showing a particular signal that almost always delays trains.

Supporting front-line operators, who often have to make real time decisions based on incomplete information, is the purpose of RSSB research project T1135 which has developed the G-FORCE decision making tool which is named after the steps it involves: G- go or no go?; F- facts; O- options; R- risks; C – choose and E – evaluate.

Another RSSB research project, T1154, considered ways of planning for disruption. This has developed a best-practice toolkit which is being tested by Greater Anglia, GTR and ScotRail. It considers four levels of disruption, five defined phases of disruption, decision making processes, the overall management of contingency plans and the processes and training needed to support them.

Enablers

The next part of the conference considered various system and processes underpinning the ongoing performance initiatives.

The way train companies deal with disruption has the biggest impact on overall passenger dissatisfaction.

One such enabler is ITED (Industry Train Event Data). In his presentation, Dominic Medway, Network Rail’s operational performance and analysis manager, explained how the ITED will enable to-the-second analysis of all aspects of operational performance. He advised that ITED is expected to go live in late summer 2019.

Crew and Stock systems were the subject of the presentation by Andrew Graham, who is the digital railway operations support for the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). This highlighted the range of systems currently in use which include verbal communications and pen and paper as well as digital systems. As many systems are not interconnected, changes are advised in an ad-hoc manner and, with continually changing demands, it is difficult for operators to keep track of crew and stock alterations and to share information with each other.

To address these issues, RDG has, following cross-industry consultation, recently published a concept of operations for a common crew and stock system which needs to be further developed to operate with Network Rail’s traffic management systems (TMS).

The important of this requirement was reinforced by Jonathan Scott, project director for Network Rail’s Digital Railway programme, who made it clear that TMS requires strong operational input. Jonathan’s presentation concerned the lessons from the first TMS deployments. These are the Thales Aramis system which, was deployed in Wales in March 2019 and is about to be introduced in Anglia, and the Resonate Luminate system that went live on the Paddington to Bristol route in June 2018.

He considered that there were positive indicators of operational benefits from this early use of TMS, especially in the identification of timetable anomalies, and that the biggest benefit has been the lessons learned for the deployment of other TMS, especially management of operational and business change inputs.

Data Sandbox Plus

A further funding opportunity for data-driven operational research was explained by RSSB’s senior partnerships and research manager, Giulia Lorenzini. This data sandbox plus call for research aims to build on the experience of the 2017 data sandbox research and seeks solutions to the following key challenges:

  • Predicting and minimising operational delays;
  • Understanding train movements;
  • Reducing dwell time variations;
  • Management of disruptions;
  • Better measurement and understanding of performance and delays;
  • Any other challenges identified by relevant organisations.

RSSB is encouraging the feasibility and demonstrator projects, for which funding from RSSB of respectively 80 and 60 per cent is available. There are two rounds of applications for which the closing dates are 5 July and 6 December with the winner to be announced in August 2019 and January 2020.

The “enabling network performance conference” certainly made it clear that infrastructure, trains and their passengers generate a vast amount of data. Examples are: each time a signal changes or a point moves, each time a train starts, stops, passes a signal or its doors open, each time someone buys a ticket or goes through a ticket gate.

The challenge is how best to use all this data. The five winners of the original data sandbox competition provided some of the answers. It will be interesting to see what solutions will come from the further research projects to be funded by data sandbox plus.

1...126127128...291Page 127 of 291