Enabling better performance

10th June 2019

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.

Is the future 5G or Wi-Fi 6?

10th June 2019

There are currently two main technology choices used for railway radio communications, mobile telephone (GSM/LTE) or Wi-Fi. GSM-R private networks are used predominately for main line track-to-train voice and ETCS (European Train Control System) data applications, with LTE/5G likely to be the choice for the future.

Public LTE networks are used for general maintenance and operational communications, and for providing customer data communications to trains. Public LTE also provides connections for some non-safety-critical operational data requirements and may supplement dedicated private networks.

Wi-Fi networks include systems for general business communications in offices and stations, passenger data communications on trains and at stations, together with customer information systems at stations. Wi-Fi is used by some train operators to supplement the public GSM/LTE internet connections to trains and some Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) systems for metros also use Wi-Fi for train control purposes.

The future for Wi-Fi technology will be IEEE 802.11ax, also known as Wi-Fi 6. Both 5G and Wi-Fi 6 will offer Gbit of data transmission, so will the future for data wireless communications be 5G or Wi-Fi6?

Mobile telephone standards across the years

Early mobile radio telephone systems, available as a commercial service and with their own telephone numbers, were mainly mounted in vehicles, although there were some suitcase ‘transportable’ models. Motorola launched its Mobile Telephone Service in the USA in 1946, while the first service in the UK covered the Manchester area in 1951, although with restricted coverage and requiring all calls to be connected by an operator.
The first generation (1G – although this term only came into use once 2G was developed) of mobile communication networks to use wireless cellular technology was launched in 1979 in Japan and then in the 1980s elsewhere. It was a hybrid of digital signalling, that connected the radio towers to the rest of the network, and analogue radio technology for the voice call itself, although this was modulated to a higher frequency.
The second generation (2G) mobile radio standard was truly digital. A GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications, originally Groupe Spécial Mobile) service was launched in Finland in 1991. GSM-R (R for Railway), the specification for which was finalised in 2000, is based on 2G GSM.
The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) was established in 1998 to develop specifications for advanced mobile communications. The original scope of 3GPP was to produce the third-generation GSM mobile system, with increased data capability. However today 3GPP provides the complete system specifications for 4G and 5G.
In March 2008, a new set of requirements for 4G were issued. Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology was submitted as a candidate 4G system in late 2009. LTE systems, in some cases, fall short of the 4G requirements for data speeds but are nevertheless known as 4G LTE.
5G is the next generation of radio offering even greater speed, lower latency and larger scale of deployment.

There are other radio technologies used in society and industry, such as Bluetooth, for short range communications, but they are not the subject of this article.

Standards

The standardisation body for wireless phone communications is 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), which developed from the telephony industry and various governmental bodies. Originally, the technology was for voice only, with data a later addition that only really started to be prominent from the 3rd generation mobile radio systems (3G) onwards.

3GPP mobile phone-based technology developed using licensed spectrum, which is obtained for a period of time by the mobile network operators from governments. Mobile ‘cellular’ radio evolved with ever-improving standards migrating from 2G GSM/GPRS to 3G, Edge, 4G, LTE and now 5G. Confusingly, the standards body is still called 3GPP and not 5GPP.

2G GSM formed the basis of the GSM-R main line railway track-to-train radio system, which provides the radio link within the European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS). This will be replaced by Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) which is likely to use LTE/5G from the mid-2020s.

Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi originated for wireless computer data communications, and this year celebrates its 20th birthday. The standards were derived from IEEE 802.11, which originated in the computer industry. The IEEE has a large engineering membership, many of which are sponsored by their employer companies, and this has influenced its development. Wi-Fi is now one of the world’s most valued and widely used technologies.

The Wi-Fi Alliance IEEE 802.11 standards group developed Wi-Fi standards in the unlicensed frequency bands. These have been allocated on license-free arrangements based on a set of rules, such as limited power so that interference range is limited. The bands are called ISM (industrial, scientific and medical) and now exist in the 2, 5 and 60 GHz bands of spectrum. The Wi-Fi Alliance is a worldwide network of companies from multiple industries who collaborate to promote the interoperability, adoption, quality, performance, security, and capability standards for Wi-Fi.

It has been a huge success and there are now more Wi-Fi devices in use than there are people on Earth, and more than half the internet’s traffic traverses Wi-Fi networks.

This was not always the case. When Wi-Fi was being developed in the late 1990s, the standardisation of 3G was progressing well and promising high data rates. 3G modems connected-to or integrated-in devices were envisioned to provide ubiquitous connectivity. The general view was that the unlicensed Wi-Fi technology would soon disappear and that mobile data using the licensed spectrum would dominate.

However, Wi-Fi developed to operate in the unlicensed ISM bands and satisfy the needs for wireless connectivity indoors, in-home or in-building, areas where 3G was not able to penetrate adequately. Wi-Fi also rapidly increased its data rate and expanded its capabilities by moving from the 2.4GHz band into the 5GHz band, and it is expected to further increase data rates by going to 60GHz.

Wi-Fi’s capability has also been supplemented with the introduction of range extender technologies and, more recently, distributed Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi Mesh) technology.

Opex or Capex?

Mobile radio using 3G/LTE requires a paid subscription to telephone operators and, possibly, roaming charges. By comparison, Wi-Fi was, and is, almost free, as the incremental cost for Wi-Fi via a fixed telephone, ISDN and, later, broadband ADSL, was limited. Many companies and government bodies are structured to spend capital to reduce operating costs, which also helped the development of Wi-Fi.

In some parts of the world, some wired operators compete directly with the wireless operators. Ironically, some wireless operators initially discouraged the use of 3G for data, due to concern for the voice service collapsing if 3G was ‘overused’, an action that supported the use of Wi-Fi for data.

This is why most computers and tablets have only two radios: Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (for short ranges). 3G-licensed radios and their successors were rarely integrated in computers or tablets because Wi-Fi offered a cost-effective and versatile internet connection. An integrated 3G radio, plus SIM card subscription, was just too expensive by comparison. When a mobile solution was required, a device such as a 3G dongle or, more recently, using an LTE mobile phone as a hotspot, provided a solution.

One might assume that the demarcations between the two technologies would be clear: Wi-Fi for private areas such as home and office and GSM/LTE for everywhere else, but this is not the case.

The telephone operators in 3GPP were naturally quite suspicious about the development of so-called ‘data hotspots,’ public places where people could get access to high speed internet without needing a subscription. Fortunately for the telephone operators, it turned out that running a large number of hotspots was not trivial, particularly for large retail and hotel chains, cities and trains. Public hotspot companies have been slowly absorbed by the telephone operators in some countries. The situation has also been influenced by the introduction of ‘Wi-Fi calling’ which provides a voice service capability over the Wi-Fi data-only IP connection.

Consumers and companies found that running Wi-Fi networks was becoming more complex, and some telephone and cable operators used private Wi-Fi as business opportunities – helping organisations and smaller companies to run their Wi-Fi networks.

The next change was the rapid growth of data traffic, for example via video applications such as YouTube, which required operators to increase capacity. However, obtaining more frequency bands was not easy or cheap. A faster way of increasing this capacity, next to leveraging Wi-Fi, was that the successor of 3G, 4G or LTE technology can also run in the ISM band. This resulted in the concept of LTE with licensed assisted access (LAA). The 3GPP specifications now provide for both Wi-Fi and LTE-LAA to be used in the same 5GHz spectrum.

Spectrum is a finite limited resource and, at the 2019 World Radio Conference, it is hoped that significant new allocations for both Wi-Fi and 5G to support the increasing demands for wireless data communications will be made.

Wi-Fi 6

The IEEE 802.11 is introducing higher speed versions, 11n and 11ac, and is in the process of completing 11ax – also known as Wi-Fi 6. 3GPP is investing heavily in 5G and both 5G or IEEE Wi-Fi 6 will be able to deliver high data rates (Gbps). 5G is claiming that it will have “way better indoor penetration”, but that is questionable with the higher frequency spectrum that may be used in some 5G networks.

The standards body for Wi-Fi 6 is using the slogan “5G has arrived and it is called Wi-Fi 6.” Wi-Fi 6 is an evolution of Wi-Fi 5, but it offers new, additional capabilities that greatly improve its capacity and ability to share spectrum efficiently in high density, high load situations. So, will 5G or Wi-Fi 6 be the winner?

Wi-Fi 6 is designed to host existing and emerging uses, from streaming ultra-high-definition movies to mission-critical business applications requiring high bandwidth and low latency, and to staying connected and productive while traversing large, congested networks in airports and railway stations. It is understood that Wi-Fi 6 will offer speeds that are roughly 30 per cent faster than Wi-Fi 5, with theoretical maximum transfer speeds of around 10Gbps.

The reach will be reduced, although this will be mitigated with a distributed Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi Mesh) architecture and the use of multiple channels to connect multiple access points in different locations to the main router. The focus of IEEE 802.11ax is to provide full indoor coverage into every space within a home or office building covered with the same high data rate. This will not be easily achieved with 5G.

5G’s higher data rates also create a penalty on its range. It is anticipated that range will probably decrease to less than half, forcing the number of base stations to more than quadruple, due to the square nature of coverage. In dense urban areas, where finding sites to place base stations is difficult, rolling out 5G infrastructure will be expensive.

Both 5G and Wi-Fi 6 will use orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) to increase efficiency and to lower latency for high demand applications, multi-user multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) allowing more data to be transferred at one time, and beamforming to enable higher data rates at a given range to increase network capacity.

5G “New Radio” (NR) promises improvements in efficiency over LTE, with more use of MIMO, and new millimetre-wave – very high frequency – spectrum. These improvements are also shared with Wi-Fi 6, which will deliver comparable performance.

It is argued by some that Wi-Fi 6 will have more proven methods for sharing spectrum in overlapping networks, along with simpler network and device management. Wi-Fi 6 is also likely to reach the market in advance of any wide-scale deployment of 5G NR. 5G is likely to go live in 2020, although only in some cities in the world, and its use in railways is likely to be some years away (2025) with 4G LTE able to do all that railways really require for some time.

Wi-Fi 6 routers from Cisco, Netgear, Asus and TP-Link are already rolling out, including mesh options for the Netgear Orbi and TP-Link Deco, with release dates set for the second half of the year. The Samsung Galaxy S10 is reported as being the first phone to support Wi-Fi 6, and other devices will quickly follow, such as the iPhone and the next generation of laptops and Wi-Fi smart building devices.

Wi-Fi interference

Wi-Fi has been used successfully for a number of metro railway CBTC systems. Although a few CBTC systems have been deployed using alternative radio bearers – such as waveguides or induction loops – the majority of the CBTC implementations since 2013 have used Wi-Fi-based radio systems to bridge the train-to-lineside gap, but this is changing.

The limitations that Wi-Fi presents to CBTC systems – on range, quality of service, mobility and (especially) interference – have made some rail operators and suppliers look for alternatives. A series of incidents in CBTC systems in China instigated the China Association of Metros to stipulate in 2014 that all future CBTC deployments in China would use LTE as their radio bearer and 2018 saw the first wave of CBTC over LTE projects entering service, almost all of them in China.

The deployment in Hong Kong, however, continues to use Wi-Fi as the primary radio bearer, with a mobile network operator (HKT) providing an LTE radio backup. Future CBTC over LTE projects currently in development include Shanghai Metro Lines 15 (2019) and 14 (2020), as well as the ATC project in Perth, Australia, currently scheduled for 2024.

Wi-Fi was developed to provide connections to static locations, where as GSM/LTE/5G has always been designed for efficient handover from node to node, such that a moving transmitter/receiver always has a reliable connection. Handover to a moving object is possible with Wi-Fi, but its not what it was designed for and the solutions are a compromise.

So, to answer the question, is the future 5G or Wi-Fi 6?

Both 5G and Wi-Fi 6 will have very particular characteristics that will be beneficial for connecting devices to the internet. Therefore, what is likely to happen is that operators and system engineers will exploit both technologies to their advantage and implement a strategy that leverages both technologies for the customer, allowing seamless migrations between the two standards when necessary.

So, the ultimate winner may not be 5G or Wi-Fi, but could well be the system user.

Mind the gap

10th June 2019

With more and more work being undertaken ‘adjacent line open’, Network Rail and its contractors have had to become more inventive in finding ways to protect the workforce from passing trains while still having room to carry out the necessary work.

Rail Engineer has reported on various initiatives. From magnetic fencing that can be erected quickly and safely to complete mobile maintenance trains, complete with workshops and a car with no floor and extending sides that track maintenance teams can shelter in while working.

But none of those solve the problem of stations. With an open edge, passing trains, and a drop of about one metre onto the track, platforms can be risky places for maintenance workers.

Standing a fence right on the platform edge doesn’t work. They either fall off the edge or become displaced so they could be struck by passing trains. Pulling them in a few metres doesn’t work either as that can mean much of the platform surface can’t be worked on. What it needed was a new solution.

Novel design

Having worked together in the UK rail industry for a number of years, close friends Mark Swanepoel, Mike East and Jurgens Fourie got together and formed Platform Edge Protection, dedicated to protecting railway staff from the dangers of platform edges.

The trick was to develop a clamping system that was quick and easy to install, and that didn’t need special tools or, even worse, holes drilling.

What they came up with was simplicity itself. A plate on top of the platform, from which extends a vertical post, is connected to a metal tube, drilled with equally spaced holes, that hangs down over the edge of the platform coper. A bar, which retains the bottom half of the clamp, slides up the tube and into position, and is then pinned in place through one of the holes, with the drilled tube allowing plenty of variety in coper thickness. The whole clamp is then tightened by manually turning the clamp’s T-bar. Rubber pads top and bottom of the clamp account for any unevenness in the surface.

Installing these clamps is the only time workers are at risk. They have to access the track under a safe system of work to attach the clamps, two metres apart along the platform edge.

Once the clamps are safely in place, horizontal poles can now be clipped to the row of vertical posts. As the poles cross the posts on the side away from the track, they can’t be forced out of the clips and allow anyone to access the track.

A row of kickboards is now placed along the bottom of the poles and the fence is complete.

The posts, poles and kickboards are made from pultruded glass reinforced plastic (GRP), so they are lightweight, have no problem with corrosion, and are electric insulators so can be used on an electrified railway without the need for any additional bonding.

Testing and application

The new Platform Edge Protection fencing system has been assessed for track gauging and has been tested to BS EN 13374

Installations have taken place at West Drayton, Slough, Guildford, Riddlesdown and Romford stations, where reports say that the PEP system will revolutionise safety when working on station platforms.

James Malin, construction manager for Amey on Crossrail, said: “Having worked in the railway industry almost all my life, I’ve never seen a more complete safety product than the PEP. Edge protection on platforms has always been a problem and there was nothing on the market that could be used that ticks all the boxes as PEP. It’s quick and easy to install and, most importantly, it protects my workers by eliminating two of the biggest risks in our industry.”

Alex Wason Jnr, foreman for Volker Fitzpatrick: “My team and I have never felt safer when working on a station platform. I always had concerns about falling off the platform or coming into contact with a road-rail vehicle passing through a worksite, but PEP eliminates those risks, ensuring we can go home safe each day. It’s a fantastic system and should be used everywhere.”

With Network Rail having a healthy budget to both refurbish stations and improve them under the Access for All scheme, as well as build complete new stations on existing lines – Horden Peterlee, Warrington West, Reading Green Park, Bow Street, Portway Parkway – there will be many teams working on platforms next to a live railway. This new development from PEP should keep them safe.

Straightening out Market Harborough

10th June 2019

On a route which has had mixed fortunes in terms of investment and speed improvements, the works at Market Harborough – the design and construction of which is led by Amey – are part of a major boost for the Midland main line.

A significant stopping point on the route from London to Nottingham and Sheffield, the original Market Harborough station was opened on 1 May 1850 by the London and North Western Railway (LNWR), situated on its line between Stamford and Rugby and thence on to London Euston.

The Midland Railway shared the station from 1857 when it built its extension from Leicester to Bedford and, in 1859, the branch line to Northampton was opened. Thus, what is now a main-line through station was once quite a busy junction hub.

The original station building was replaced in 1884 with the current attractive structure, designed by LNWR architect John Livock and built by Parnell and Sons of Rugby.

The services on the original LNWR line were drastically reduced and then withdrawn in the 1960s while the line to Northampton closed in 1981, at which point the station ceased to be a junction. The platform canopies and buildings were replaced with modern designs in the 1960s, although the original station building was retained and then was restored in 1981.

Currently, Market Harborough is served by fast and semi-fast East Midlands Trains services and, with a journey time of around an hour, the frequency of trains is effectively appropriate for commuting to London, necessitating ample car parking facilities. The strategic importance of the station is reinforced by good bus services across the county.

However, the station’s history as a junction station, and one originally built for a different route than the current Midland main line, has resulted in a station located on a large curve and with a 60 mph speed restriction.

All about line speed

The Midland main line from St Pancras to Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham has not received any significant investment for some considerable time. The southern part of the line to Bedford was electrified in the early 1980s and British Rail Inter City made a decision to deploy a portion of its Class 43 HST fleet to the line, also in the 1980s.

Signalling was modernised at the southern end for the electrification while the northern end had been upgraded in the late 1960s. Mechanical signalling remained, covering the gap between Bedford and Trent Junction, until the 1980s, when Leicester Power Signal Box was completed, at which time the opportunity was taken to upgrade the overall linespeed to 110mph.

For such a strategically important route, the end-to-end speed remained low until proposals for electrification and line speed improvement came to the fore in more recent years. A major plank of these proposals was to remove the route’s long-term speed restrictions, that at Market Harborough being one of the most significant.

While the key aim of the project is to increase the line speed to 85mph through the Market Harborough station area, the scope of this ‘Line Speed and Station Improvement’ project also provides customers with many other improvements.

Those gains include a new, replacement car park on the east (Up) side of the station, opened in June 2018 with 300 spaces but being enlarged to 500 later in 2019. Coupled to that will be an improvement in accessibility, giving step-free access from a new entrance and, significantly, a footbridge with lifts. Previous inter-platform access had been by subway or barrow crossing, the latter being unacceptable in the implementation of new higher line speeds.

A further gain to travellers is the reduction in stepping distance between platform and train and, at last, platforms, which can actually accommodate the length of all calling trains.

The new track formation allows for crossovers just north of the platforms to facilitate flexible working when necessitated by traffic constraints.

The programme

As much of the new alignment was to be to the west (Down) side of the current Platform 1, much of the work could take place without disturbing the railway and disrupting travel.

However, between Tuesday 28 May and Sunday 02 June (inclusive), the railway between Kettering and Leicester was closed whilst 3.8km of newly aligned track was connected into the main line.

North-south passengers were diverted via the Oakham-Kettering line, enjoying a picturesque run over the Welland viaduct at Harringworth but adding about half an hour to their journey. Market Harborough passengers could use the bus-replacement services from Kettering and Leicester.

Passengers to and from London enjoyed picturesque views from the Welland viaduct between Harringworth, Northamptonshire, and Seaton, Rutland.

Progress to April

When Rail Engineer visited the site in April 2019, considerable progress was visible. Trains were still using the old platforms, but the new works were advancing at a good pace back from the current railway alignment.

Probably the most visible progress to be seen from a passing train was the disappearance of the goods shed, demolished early on to make way for the new car park, and the clearance of much vegetation on site. The former engineers’ sidings had also been shortened and then removed, replacements being available further down the route at Knighton, towards Leicester. The old Down-side car park had become the alignment for the new platforms and associated track.

As well as a significant portion of the new platforms, which were being built off-line, permanent way works south of the station had been cleared, new crossovers made up of standard components had been put in place north of the station and, of course, the barrow crossing had been removed. Significant volumes of signalling and telecommunications work had been undertaken, as had civil engineering work including strengthening of the bridges on Scotland Road, Kettering Road and Rockingham Road.

The new footbridge was in place, and could be used as a viewing platform, with both lift shafts and stairs erected. However, at the time, there was no railway underneath it!

New alignment and station arrangement compared to the original layout.

April/May

There was still work to do before the May/June blockade. This included further platform work together with completion of track installation and track drainage. The project teams needed to complete the footbridge installation, install the lifts, and finalise some strengthening work on Great Bowden Road bridge.

The new alignment was tied into the existing infrastructure during the blockade. This will then allow the build of the remainder of the new Up platform and the demolition of the old Platform 2 and its associated infrastructure post commissioning. The resumption of train services on 3rd June saw the new platforms brought into use and trains using the newly laid track on its straightened alignment.

Finally, the project will be able to complete the last 200 spaces of the new car park on the route of the old up London line, bring the underpass back into use and fully commission the station with full project completion in December.

Arrangements for the new footbridge giving full cross platform access for persons of reduced mobility.

Electrification

The original proposals for the Midland main line route improvement envisaged full electrification of the route through to Nottingham and Sheffield. However, due to changes in government priorities, the scheme was de-scoped to include the main line only to Kettering and the branch to Corby. Trains north of the junction will continue under a form of bi-mode operation.

However, power supply considerations in the original full design allowed for the grid intake to be adjacent to Market Harborough and a subsequent decision has been taken to extend the overhead line contact system to Market Harborough station itself.

The station design retains passive provision for a fully electrified route.

Impact on customers

Such major works significantly impact the users of the station as well as other stakeholders, so the team has taken action to minimise that effect. East Midlands Trains has been closely involved with those arrangements and all partners have produced a strategy to achieve the best outcome. Station users will have noticed the temporary closure of the ladies’ and accessible toilets on Platform 1 since early February, although the waiting room has remained open. Those arrangements have been replaced by portable facilities on the station forecourt.

The station underpass will be closed from 28 May until December 2019, but accessibility was maintained for all station users via the new footbridge when the station reopened on 3 June.

The station booking office remained open during the six days of the blockade to assist passengers and the coffee shop continued trading throughout!

The new footbridge spans a building site rather than a railway – 26 April 2019.

Relationships and stakeholders

As with any major project, particularly one in a populated and fast-growing area, a number of stakeholders and organisations were involved. Both Network Rail and East Midlands Trains placed great emphasis on engagement and communications. A dedicated website informed both the local population and travellers of progress, while bi-monthly lineside neighbour letters were sent out to residents living within 200 metres of either side of line for a six mile stretch of route. More localised letters were issued as other potentially disruptive work is done.

Public and stakeholder meetings formed an important part of the communications strategy and these have taken place within the community as well as adjacent to the site.

The active Market Harborough Railway Association has been closely involved in the consultation and has made its views clear for sharing with the project. Site visits have also been arranged with the Local Economic Partnership, the local Member of Parliament and the media (press and trade) before and during closure.

Environmental considerations have quite rightly taken a high profile with the project – there are several different initiatives in hand contributing to the integration of the works with the surrounding locations.

Firstly, immediately north of the station, an area of land is it to be used for habitat enhancement and an ecology area will be produced. The remaining soil left on the site will have dips, piles and other textural features laid into it to create various habitat types. The existing seed bank from the area will be reinstated and reptile refuges are to be created. Wildflower and other bee-attracting features will be installed to enhance the area and create a haven for many species. Network Rail has asked locals to get involved with the scheme, including local schools and community groups.

Litter assumes a very high profile around the railway and can become a focus for discontent around major works sites. The project has therefore provided eight members of staff to engage with a local community group to help clean the adjacent area.

The Infrastructure Projects East Midlands framework has an ongoing commitment to sustainable communities, so the project team contacted the Market Harborough Environment Group (MHEG), a voluntary organisation which works to improve the local environment by:

Organising individual and group litter picking;
Spreading information about recycling, through stands at local events;
Encouraging and providing re-useable bags to their local community;
Living talks and information to individuals, groups and organisations in the area.

MHEG was keen to set up an event in collaboration with the project team in order to benefit the local area. As a result, the Market Harborough project team met with six members of MHEG outside the access to the old station carpark on 7 September 2018. Once on site, the leader of MHEG briefed the team on the task and safety information and the two routes which had been chosen to receive the clean-up:
1. Out on Rockingham Road from the station towards Gores Lane and Kettering Road;
2. Along the river in to Symington’s Recreation Ground and back along St. Mary’s Road.

The teams were split so there was a mix of project and MHEG members on both routes, the local knowledge of the MHEG was invaluable to the event and everyone got to know each other during the afternoon. After a couple of hours work both teams met back at the station with a collection of 10 full bags of rubbish. This was then stored at the access point and the MHEG team had this picked up the same day by a local council contact who is familiar with their work.

Chippings

One unavoidable biproduct of the devegetation work that took place was a considerable quantity of wood chippings which, due to limited space on site, required removal. However, traditional methods, such as waste disposal, would have proved costly economically and environmentally.

Virgin timbers such as these are not classed as waste, according to the Environment Agency’s briefing issued in September 2014, so they are not subject to waste regulatory controls and can be used for gardens/pathways, composting and to create or maintain habitats. The Market Harborough team decided to donate the wood chippings to local community groups. So, on 25 September 2018, three members of the team spent the day delivering wood chippings to various locations around the project site.

Great Bowden Pre-School had recently been discussing with the church to make an outdoor/nature area in the playground at the back of the church hall. It received a rubble bag full of chippings for the base of this project.

The Market Harborough and Bowden’s Charity runs several projects throughout the area and uses wood chippings in the pathways of its allotments. Two pick-up loads were delivered to the Northampton Road allotments.

Waterloo Community Gardens was set up by Waterloo Cottage Farm in Great Oxendon village as part of Sustainable Harborough, giving local people the chance to enjoy horticulture. The gardens required one pick-up load of chippings to use for paths and bedding.

Lubenham Primary School had recently been quoted over £1,000 to refill the wood chippings in the playground, so the project’s donation couldn’t have come at a better time. One pick-up load was delivered immediately, and a further five deliveries have been made to replace the lost chippings.

Farndon Fields Primary School is undergoing significant building works. The school required one pick-up load for landscaping purposes for the finished build.

Further chippings were delivered around the area and the remaining chippings were taken to a local stable with which the project had prior connections.

The aim of having all chippings removed from site for reuse purposes was successful and saved the project approximately £5,000 and 290kg carbon dioxide, based on the 16-17 grab wagons that would have been needed to remove all the material off site. It also saved the various community groups and schools a substantial amount of money.

The new car park is complete but passengers are still parking in the old one. The curve of the track can be clearly seen – this will be resited through the old car park once that has been closed.

Successful team

The success of this project is largely due to the close cooperation between the major players – Network Rail and East Midlands Trains, principal contractor Amey, and a highly effective team of subcontractors including AMCO Rail, Arup, Atkins, Galliford Try, Murphy, Siemens and SPL Powerlines UK.

Amey fielded a team which really benefitted from the ‘early contractor involvement’ philosophy all the way through from the ‘approval in principle’ stage. Amey ensured that the original team was able to develop and work consistently with the project, even during the changes in industry contracting structure that have occurred.

Senior engineer Bruce Adamson, Amey’s engineering manager, paid tribute to the team which has seen the works through and taken maximum advantage of that early contractor involvement. He commented that the very welcome process led to “No surprises”, even though the scheme involved Amey taking over from a previous main contractor (Carillion), a challenge that was met by strategic staff moving through to join the Amey team.

Blockade scope – the statistics

Signalling installation

14 location suites
16 signals and associated four-foot equipment
28 track circuits
14 lineside signs
1 time-division multiplex link to East Midlands control centre
1 interlocking

Signalling removal/recovery

32 track circuits
14 AWS units
12 signals
13 sets of TPWS
12 treadles
16 signs
40,000 metres of lineside cables
5 equipment cases

Permanent way

Switch and crossing tamping – 4 point-ends
New line construction – 1,632 metres
Construction tamping – 2,979 metres
Design tamping – 3,258 metres

Bulk Volumes

Spoil
- Up Fast 3,612 tonnes
- Down Fast 2,460 tonnes
- Drainage 100 tonnes
- Total 6,172 tonnes
Sand – 250 tonnes
Type 1 aggregate – 380 tonnes
Bottom/top ballast – 5,204 tonnes
Shingle – drainage – 50 tonnes
Platform demolition – 906 cubic metres
Platform 2 additional dig and trackbed – 241 cubic metres