Stadler’s new SMILE electric multiple unit, which Swiss
national operator SBB calls Giruno (Buzzard), has been issued an operating
licence by the Swiss Federal Office of Transport (FOT) to run at 200km/h
(125mph) in single-train formations on the Swiss network. This paves the way
for the Giruno to enter passenger service from early summer 2019, running
through the Gotthard Base Tunnel, and the Ceneri Base Tunnel when it opens at the
end of 2020, to connect Zurich with Milan and, later, Frankfurt.
Originally the EC250, the SMILE received its name as the result
of a competition held during an open day, an acronym of Schneller
Mehrsystemfähiger Innovativer Leichter Expresszug (speedy, multi-system,
innovative, lightweight express train). It is claimed by the manufacturer to be
the world’s first single-decker low-floor high-speed train. The low floor
provides step-free access from platforms with heights between 550mm, the
standard height in Switzerland, Austria and Italy, and 760mm (Germany).
Although based on Stadler’s successful FLIRT EMU design, the
SMILE differs from its elder sister in many ways. It has a maximum operating
speed of 250km/h (155mph), the train reached 275km/h (170mph) while testing
between Hannover and Göttingen in Germany in February 2018, and iIt is designed
to comply with the TSI (Technical Standards for Interoperability) High-speed
regulations as well as to meet the EN 15227 crashworthiness standards.
In addition, the carriages are air-tight and
air-conditioned, improving ride comfort for passengers. Provision is made for
passengers with reduced mobility, with wheelchair spaces and accessible toilets
in both first and standard-class carriages.
As ordered by SBB, each 11-car train is 202 metres long and seats 405 (117 in first class and 288 in standard). Two can be coupled together to form an 810-capacity, 404-metre-long train which can run at the full design speed of 250km/h.
Stadler EC250 “Giruno” SMILE on test between Erlen and Romanshorn. (Daniel Wipf)
The train has an articulated layout, with one bogie between
each carriage and one at each end – 12 in total. Four powered bogies (in
positions 2,3, 10 and 11) contain eight traction motors, and power is drawn through
four pantographs, a mix of 1450mm and 1950mm wide, allowing the train to run
using 15kV 16.7Hz AC, 25kV 50Hz AC and 3,000V DC supplies.
SBB ordered 29 trains in October 2014 at a value of CHF980
million (£632 million), with an option for an additional 92. The first train
was unveiled at InnoTrans in Berlin in September 2016, just 23 months later,
and the first unit was delivered to SBB in May 2017.
The tragic
accident on the Croydon tram network in November 2016, in which seven people
were killed and many more injured, has raised many questions about tram safety.
As reported in issue 171 (Jan/Feb 2019), several recommendations were made in
the subsequent report by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), a
number of which have already been implemented. Key to all of these is how to
implement an overspeed protection system such that the chances of a similar
accident occurring are so low that the risk can be discounted.
Transport
for London (TfL) has now let a contract to Deutsche Bahn’s UK subsidiary ESG
Rail for providing such a system on London’s trams, with the component parts
being supplied by Sella Controls, a Stockport-based company specialising in
low-cost ground to train communication technology.
Rail Engineer went to meet Iain Wilkinson from Sella Controls to learn how the system will function and what will be involved to achieve full implementation.
Aerial view of the site. (RAIB)
Background to the challenge
In terms of
operation, trams may be regarded as more like buses, in that the journey
progresses by the ‘drive on sight’ principle whereby the driver is responsible
for the safe movement of the tram according to what can visually be seen ahead.
Signals in the form of horizontal, vertical or junction picture white bars are
only provided at road intersections or where tram lines diverge.
The
vigilance of the driver is therefore critical to safe operation and, on
street-running sections, this is virtually identical to that of a bus driver
with the exception of steering. Tram networks allow for steep gradients and
sharp curves, so the vehicles are designed to cope with these.
However, the resurgence of tram networks in the UK has made considerable use of existing main line rail routes, either by reopening disused formations or taking over existing rail lines. On such sections, tram speeds can be much greater (up to 70km/h) as it is a dedicated right of way with no interference from road vehicles or pedestrians.
The Croydon acciodent occurred on a sharp bend after the tram had emerged from Sandilands tunnel. (RAIB)
In the Croydon
area, a rail line existed between Selsdon and Elmers End. It was a Cinderella
route in that it went from virtually nowhere to nowhere and, although
electrified on the 3rd rail system, it carried few passengers and was closed in
the early 1980s. The formation remained virtually intact, including a number of
short tunnels.
In the
planning of the Croydon Tramlink system in the 1990s, this redundant route was
seen as potentially useful to link some outlying suburbs with central Croydon.
To achieve this, the erstwhile line was linked at its half way point by two
sharp curves into a street running section, with a new tram stop at Sandilands
and onwards into the town centre past the busy East Croydon station.
The speed around these curves is 20km/h but, on the day of the accident, the driver allegedly lost awareness of his location and failed to slow down from the 70km/h of the former rail route section, resulting in the tram overturning. The route just before the curve is in tunnel and there was no natural daylight at the time. Hindsight would indicate that, in a dark locality, it would be all too easy to be confused as to the precise position of the tram.
Since the
accident, much improved signage and a new driver vigilance system called
‘Guardian’ has been provided. Both of these contribute enormously to preventing
any similar recurrence, but they stop short of actually taking over control
should the driver fail to slow down for any speed restriction.
Designing a speed control system
The RAIB
report did not specify the detail of a speed control system, just that
technology should be used to intervene if a tram approaches a speed restriction
too fast. It was left to industry to come up with a solution that is cost
effective and with an appropriate level of safety integrity.
On main line
railways, this would usually be a SIL4 system (Safety Integrity Level 4) with
full failsafe status and active monitoring of the system integrity and
functionality. Such an application to a tram network would be overkill and the
considerable expense would be difficult to justify in view of the low risks
involved.
A SIL2
solution has therefore been specified as one of the functional requirements to
provide basic overspeed protection. The safety system will be invisible to the
driver under normal circumstances, with the system only kicking in if the tram
is detected as going too fast at a particular location. The risk of the safety
system failing at the same time as an over speed is occurring is regarded as so
small as to be discounted.
Should a
system failure be detected, the system can be bypassed by the driver with the
correct authorisation, thus allowing the journey to continue until such point
as the tram can be taken out of service for investigation of the failure.
To make sure it wasn’t ‘reinventing the wheel’, TfL engineers researched what other light rail systems around the world were using to overcome this problem. Metro Tenerife has a system, but it isn’t SIL 2, and a few other networks also employ some measure of overspeed protection, but not to the standard that TfL required. So, the only thing was to develop a new system, using proven technology if possible.
Tracklink III
Tracklink III from Sella Controls.
Sella
Controls has developed, over the years, a track-to-train communication link
originally developed for selective door opening (SDO). This consists of a
sealed track or lineside-mounted beacon that is powered from the radio signal
of the train interrogator unit. The beacon is coded with data for the specific
location and the information exchange between beacon and interrogator can be
used for a number of applications.
For SDO, 18
fleets of UK trains are now equipped with the system. The radio link is in the
865.7 to 867.9 MHz unlicensed band and power levels of around 200mW give a
range of around one metre. Rail Engineer articles on the SDO system appeared in
issues 58 (August 2009) and 102 (April 2013).
Although,
when used in SDO mode, trains are normally stopped at a station, tests showed
that Tracklink III could get an acceptable number of ‘reads’ at speeds of over
70mph.
Could the system be adapted for the London requirement? Discussions between ESG and Sella Controls led to the emergence of a practical solution.
System design and application
The Sella Controls system has three basic component parts – firstly, the track beacons mounted transversely between the running rails, secondly, the underfloor beacon readers mounted on the underside of each tram and, thirdly, an on board controller (right) unit that monitors all the beacon ‘reads’ and which is linked to a 4G public cellular radio connection or Wi-Fi for reporting back to a workstation in the control room.
Trainnet onboard controller from EKE Electronics.
The onboard
controller is being supplied by EKE Electronics of Finland, with whom Sella
Controls has a partnership. The company is an independent supplier of TCMS
(Train Control and Management Systems) and its Trainnet product is being used
for this project.
A fourth unit is a cab display that indicates that the system is operating normally, whether a trip has occurred, a reset switch and a ‘break glass’ bypass facility. A driver activating a cab for a journey automatically connects the display of that cab to the onboard controller while a connection from the controller unit to the brake circuit enables the brake to be applied should a trip occur.
Each track beacon is individually programmed with the maximum permitted speed at that point.
On the
approach to any significant curve, a series of beacons (up to four) will be
positioned some distance in advance of the curve. Each beacon will be
programmed with the maximum permitted speed at a specific point ahead which
represents the start of a slowing down zone, thus a four-beacon arrangement
would signify four zones.
The train
odometry then measures the distance to the start of the first zone, this zone
being typically 150 metres in length. The speed at that point is likely to be
the line speed, which is already set at a maximum of 70km/h. If that speed is
exceeded, the system trips in and a full service-brake application is made.
The second
beacon would similarly give a speed and distance for the start of the second
zone, the zone distance being shorter (typically 30 metres) with, say, a
maximum speed of 60km/h, as the tram should be slowing down for the curve.
Similarly,
the third beacon would give a speed for the start of the third zone at, for
example, 40km/h and the fourth beacon indicates the speed near to the start of
the curve – typically 20km/h.
Under normal driving conditions, the speed at the beginning of each zone should be well under the maximum speed permitted but, if the tram exceeds this, then a trip occurs and a service-brake application is made, bringing the tram to a stop.
The exact
distance from the beacon to the zone start is not critical but will be around
60 metres. The zones are ‘virtual’ and are not marked in any way. Each beacon
will be programmed with the distance to zone commencement, zone length and
maximum tram speed within that zone. The four-beacon arrangement is such that
the combination of all four can be positioned before the commencement of the
first zone, so the tram odometry equipment is vitally important in monitoring
the slowing down process as it has to measure the distance to the start of the
different zones simultaneously.
If the curve
is not so tight and thus the speed is higher, it is likely that fewer beacons
will be required, but there will always be a minimum of two.
Should a trip occur and the tram stops, the EKE controller will immediately and automatically notify the London Tram control room of an over speed activation, following which the driver must speak with the control room to arrange a re-set. An instruction to activate the reset switch will then be given whence the tram brake can be released and the tram proceed on its journey. The onboard controller unit, with its data recording facility, will log every pass over a beacon and whether or not the tram is near the speed limit at that point.
Fitting the fleet
There are
two types of tram in the fleet of 36 in London, supplied by Bombardier and
Stadler, and both are already fitted with speed sensors and odometers. ESG and
Sella Controls are undertaking the design of the system jointly, with ESG
delivering the integration design of Sella’s system to the vehicles and for
retro fitting the trams with the reader and controller equipment, including
interfacing these to the brake and odometry circuits.
Sella has
said that a ‘first in class’ fitment will be ready for testing in August 2019
and, following a reliability validation period, it is planned to fit the system
to one tram every four days, with completion by the end of the year.
Once the
system is commissioned, every tram will go through a test routine as it leaves
the depot each morning, to prove that the onboard equipment is working.
Future potential
Clearly the
seriousness of the accident meant that doing nothing was not an option for TfL,
and many eyes from elsewhere will be watching as to the performance and
effectiveness of the system once it is in service.
A SIL 2
system was called for in the specification, but alternative options are likely
to be considered by other tram operators, both in the UK and abroad. A SIL 0
system, based upon SatNav positioning and an associated speed alarm but without
direct intervention to the tram brakes, might be an option. It will all depend
on the risks perceived.
Much will
depend on the cost of fitting any future system. The costs for the Croydon
system are not being disclosed, but the bulk of this will be in retrofitting
the trams. The track beacons are relatively cheap and fitting on board
equipment to a new tram is always much easier and cheaper than retrofitting.
It will be
interesting to watch how over speed protection measures are progressed into the
future.
An earlier article in Rail Engineer described HS2’s £2.75 billion procurement of at least 54 classic-compatible high-speed trains to run from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. This month’s issue considers the very-high-speed (over 200km/hr) pedigree of the companies competing for this contract and where they might build their new trains.
HS2 announced five selected bidders for its high-speed train contract in November 2017. These were Alstom Transport, Bombardier Transportation UK, Hitachi Rail Europe, Patentes Talgo and Siemens. In July, Bombardier and Hitachi announced that they would form a partnership to submit a joint bid for the contract. In response, HS2 invited Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) to join the shortlist of bidders in the interest of maintaining robust competition. Bids are due to be submitted in May.
Shinkansen Series 700
and Series 100.
Shinkansen legacy
Hitachi’s
high-speed train pedigree goes back to the introduction of the Japanese
Shinkansen (shin – new, kan sen – trunk line) train service in 1964. Since
then, the company has produced a further eleven types of Shinkansen train. Over
this time, continuous improvement has reduced the weight of the train sets from
972 to 700 tonnes, increased their maximum speed from 210 to 320km/h and
reduced power consumption such that the latest Shinkansen Series N700 at
300km/h requires only 68 per cent of the power of a Series 0 at 220km/h.
Hitachi
entered the UK rolling stock market with its 225km/h Class 395 Javelin train,
which started HS1’s high-speed domestic services in 2009. This was developed
from the Series 400 Shinkansen, modified to comply with EU standards. Since
then, Hitachi won the Intercity Express electric and bi-mode trains for the
Great Western and East Coast Main Lines and an order for the ScotRail class 385
EMUs.
To build these trains, Hitachi Rail Europe built a 43,000 m2 assembly plant at Newton Aycliffe in County Durham. This started production in 2015 and can produce 35 vehicles a month. With the Newton Aycliffe plant operating at capacity, further train orders from Great Western, TransPennine Express and Hull Trains for class 802 bi-mode units had to be built at Hitachi’s Pistoia plant in Italy, which Hitachi acquired from AnsaldoBreda in 2015.
Experimental AEG three-phase railcar which set a world speed record for electric rail vehicles of 210.2km/h on 28 October 1903 between (Berlin-) Marienfelde and Zossen.
High speed consortia
AEG, one of the companies that eventually became Bombardier Transportation had a high-speed pedigree going back to 1903, when it supplied electrical equipment for a railcar, powered by a 10kV three-phase overhead line system, which achieved 210.2km/h, a rail speed record that stood for the next 51 years.
In more
recent times, Bombardier was part of a consortium with Siemens that developed
the German ICE 3 high-speed train which entered service in 2002. Bombardier led
the development of bogies, structures engineering, aerodynamics and
pantographs. The ICE 4, which entered service in 2017, was also developed in
partnership with Siemens.
In a
consortium with Talgo in 2005, Bombardier was entirely responsible for the
development of traction and bogies for the power cars for the Talgo 350 train.
In a partnership with Alstom, Bombardier built the USA’s only high-speed train,
the tilting Acela, which entered service in 2000.
It was China
that provided a market for Bombardier’s wholly designed high-speed trains that
were built by local train builders. The first was the 200km/hr CRH1A, which was
based on its Swedish Regina trains. This was followed by the 250km/h CRH1B
trains in 2009. In total 344 of these trainsets were delivered.
The first of Bombardier’s Zefiro high-speed trains entered service in China in 2009. These are 250km/h 16-car sleeper trains. The CRH380D is a 380km/h eight-car Zefiro variant for which China has placed an order for 85. These have achieved 420km/h during tests on the Chinese high-speed network.
Hitachi and
Bombardier’s Frecciarossa
ETR1000.
The Zefiro
300 variant is intended for European use and is designed for UIC gauge. This
design was offered by Bombardier in association with AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi)
for a bid that, in 2010, won the contract to build 50 Italian high-speed
trains. With Bombardier supplying the bogies, traction equipment and control
systems, Hitachi Rail Europe built the trains, including bodyshells, at its
Pistoia plant. These eight-car ETR1000 trainsets, commonly known in Italy as
Frecciarossa (the red arrow), entered service in 2015.
Learning from Italy
Rail
Engineer was recently invited to travel on the Frecciarossa between Rome and
Florence. This is Italy’s first high-speed rail route, which opened in 1977 and
on which trains are limited to 250km/h due to its 3kV DC overhead line system.
The remainder of the high-speed railway between Salerno and Turin is
electrified at 25 kV AC and has a line speed of 300km/h. Frecciarossa services
also serve stations on the conventional network.
The train
has four classes. Standard and Premium each have 2 + 2 seating. Business class
has 2 +1 seating and Executive is 1+1. The train design allows for a flexible
mix of seating arrangements. Such flexibility will be needed for HS2 trains as
the seating will be specified by the train operator after the contract has been
let.
The
Executive coach has just 10 seats and includes a six-seat meeting room. This
was where Marco Sacchi, Hitachi Rail Italy’s head of high speed, answered
questions. He advised that the train was designed for a maximum operating speed
of 360km/h and had achieved 399km/h during testing. Although high-speed routes
have better track quality than conventional routes, Marco is in no doubt that
high-speed running presents significant challenges in respect of noise,
vibration and ride quality.
High speed
also has other challenges in respect of passenger comfort, for example to avoid
pressure pulses the train has a predictive system that closes the heating and
ventilation system air intakes, within a tenth of a second, immediately before
entering a tunnel.
Although the Hitachi/Bombardier joint venture is focused on its HS2 bid, the two companies remain competitors in other markets. This requires special arrangements in respect of the bid team’s use of company-specific information. In the developing their bid and plans to build the HS2 trains, both companies will no doubt build on the partnership that built the Frecciarossa and use their manufacturing plants in Newton Aycliffe and Derby to best advantage.
Pre-production Alstom
TGV in 1979.
French high speed
France has a
tradition of high-speed rail records dating back to 1955 when a 1.5kV DC SNCF
Class CC7100 locomotive achieved a world record of 331km/h. This run
demonstrated challenges of routine high-speed running after hunting bogie
forces deformed 400 metres of track and destroyed the locomotive’s pantograph.
This speed record lasted until 26 February 1981 when an Alstom-built TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) achieved 380km/h on a slight down grade between Courcelles-Frémoy, Côte-d’Or, and Dyé, Yonne, on the LGV Sud-Est line.
V150 train setting the
world speed record
of 574.8km/h near Le
Chemin, France, on 3 April
2007.
The current
railway speed record of 574.8km/h was set on the newly completed but as yet
unopened LGV Est line in 2007 by a specially prepared five-car train that was
fitted with extra powered bogies, producing a total of 19.6MW from the enhanced
31kV overhead supply, and aerodynamic fairings that had been designed using a
wind tunnel.
The first
two pre-production TGVs left Alstom’s Belfort plant in July 1978. These were
subject to thousands of tests before problems of high-speed vibration and bogie
stability were eventually resolved. Alstom delivered the first of 87 production
TGVs in 1980. These originally had a maximum speed of 260km/h and, on 27
September 1981, were used to inaugurate Europe’s first high-speed rail service
on the 409-kilometre French South East high-speed line.
The French
hi-speed network now consists of 12 lines totalling about 2,700 kilometres for
which Alstom have delivered about 550 TGVs. These are articulated units of
eight or ten cars that operate at speeds up to 320km/h. They include
double-decker (Duplex) and postal service units as well as the first Eurostar
trains. The TGVs have articulated passenger cars with a power car at each end
which also powers the adjacent passenger car bogie.
In 2000
Alstom took over Fiat Ferroviaria, whose tilting technology is used in Virgin’s
Pendolino trains. The company has since used this technology on the Spanish
Avant classes 104 and 114, both built in a consortium with CAF, the Italian
ETR500/600, the Swedish RABe503 and the Russian-gauge Sm6 that operates between
St Petersburg and Helsinki.
Other
overseas high-speed train orders included 94 CRH5A trainsets supplied under a
technology transfer agreement to China. Another such agreement was for 46
18-car TGVs, of which 34 were built in Korea. Alstom also built 12 Duplex TGVs
for Morocco.
In 2000, Alstom unveiled its AGV design, which is unique in using articulated bogies for distributed traction. AGV-type bogies were fitted to the shortened TGV Duplex that achieved the 581km/h speed record in 2007. 25 AGVs were supplied to Italy in 2012.
Alstom’s double decked
Avelia high-speed train.
As
previously mentioned, a consortium of Alstom and Bombardier supplied the USA’s
Acela trains. These will soon be replaced by a tilting variant of Alstom’s new
high-speed train range, the Avelia, which is due to enter service on the Boston
to Washington corridor in 2021. In one of Europe’s largest-ever high-speed
train contracts, SNCF has ordered 100 double-decker Avelia trains.
Should
Alstom win the HS2 contract, it seems likely that its trains would be
constructed at its 13,000 square metre Widnes facility in Cheshire, which
opened in 2017. This is claimed to be the “biggest and most sophisticated
centre for train modernisation ever in the UK”. It has three 260-metre roads
and includes the traction equipment facility transferred from the company’s
recently closed Preston plant.
Alstom has
signed an agreement for technical training at Widnes to be led by the National
College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR), to whom Alstom also donated Eurostar power
cars and an AGV passenger car for training.
ICE and Velaro
Germany’s high-speed service started in 1991 using 280km/h ICE 1, trainsets for which Siemens supplied the electrical equipment. The ICE 2, which entered service four years later, was built by a consortium of Siemens and Adtranz – acquired by Bombardier in 2001. The next high-speed train involvement for Siemens was the supply of traction equipment for the 220km/h Portuguese Alfa Pendular tilting trains, which entered service in 1999.
Siemens Velaro E
(AVE Class 103).
The German
ICE 3 high-speed train was produced by a consortium of Bombardier and Siemens.
This was licensed to run at 330km/h and reached 368km/h on trial runs. It has
eight passenger cars with distributed traction and so has no power cars. This
train was the basis for the Siemens Velaro family, the first of which, the
Velaro E, was delivered to Spain in 2005 to run between Barcelona and Madrid at
up to 310km/h.
Velaro variants were then supplied to Spain, Russia and Turkey. In addition, hundreds have been built in China. The 16-car Velaro e320 operates Eurostar services.
The Chinese Class
CRH380B Velaro variant.
Siemens has
also produced the ICE-T, a 230km/h tilting EMU for use on German conventional
lines, and the Railjet which operates in Austria and the Czech Railways. This
is a 230km/h locomotive and seven-coach push-pull trainset.
The company is currently producing seven and twelve-car ICE 4 trains for which it has sub-contracted Bombardier to optimise design aerodynamics and produce trailer bogies and bodyshells. An ICE 4 train can consist of between five and 14 cars, with a flexible arrangement of power and trailer cars.
In June, Siemens unveiled its Velaro Novo concept of an 8MW train operating at speeds between 250 and 350km/h which, it claimed, would “set new standards for efficiency and sustainability, using 30 per cent less energy when running at 300km/h”. Its car bodies are designed as “empty tubes” for flexibility and to increase passenger space.
Velaro Novo.
In March
2018, Siemens leased land in Goole for a planned train factory with a footprint
of up to 75,000 square metres, an investment of up to £200 million. The
construction of this plant was assured in November when Siemens won a £1.5
billion contract to build new London Underground Piccadilly line trains.
Trains in Spain
The Spanish
high-speed rail network is more than 3,200 kilometres and was inaugurated with
the opening of the 472-kilometre Madrid to Seville high-speed line in 1992. As
this network is built to standard gauge, Spanish high-speed trains need to
change gauge if they are to operate on conventional Spanish broad-gauge lines.
This line required 24 AVE class 100 high-speed trains. These are an Alstom TGV Atlantique variant, with some being built by Spanish train builder CAF as its first experience of high-speed rolling stock. A CAF/Alstom consortium later delivered a further 89 Spanish high-speed trains. These were the Avant Class 104 (2004), Alvia Class 120 (2006), Alvia Class 121 (2008) and the Avant Class 114 (2011). The Class 120 and 121 trainsets have CAF’s SIBI active tilt system and BRAVA variable gauge bogies.
CAF Oaris.
CAF supplied
twelve 250km/h Class 120 /121variant to Turkey in 2009 and, in 2010, unveiled
its Oaris high-speed concept for 350km/h operation, which has distributed
traction and a flexible interior layout. In 2015, CAF won a contract to supply
eight four-car Oaris trainsets to operate on the Oslo airport rail link in
Norway.
CAF’s £30
million train production facility in Newport, South Wales, opened last year.
This 15,000 square metre-plant is now fitting out Class 195 DMU bodyshells for
Northern Rail and has started design and engineering work on the 77 DMUs that
it is to build for the Wales and Borders franchise.
Unconventional articulation
Talgo has
been progressively developing its unique trainsets since 1942. These feature
short coaches, typically 13.5 metres long, between which are steerable
two-wheel bogies without axles. Over the length of a conventional 26-metre
bogie vehicle, this arrangement saves between five and ten tonnes as it has
half the number of wheelsets. It also provides a low floor throughout the
train. Furthermore, with less overhang, shorter coaches can have a wider
bodyshell.
The independent wheels also facilitate Talgo’s variable gauge running gear which is needed for Spanish high-speed classic compatible trains. Talgo’s suspension system provides natural tilt as the bogie’s main suspension spring assembly is well above the coach’s centre of gravity. This could give the company an advantage for HS2 services on curved routes to Scotland.
Talgo’s two-wheeled articulated bogie, inset shows how its suspension system provides natural tilt.
Talgo’s
first high-speed trainset entered service in 2005. This was the 300km/h Spanish
Class 102, for which power cars were provided by Bombardier, of which sixteen
were built. The Talgo/Bombardier collaboration delivered a further 72 Spanish
trainsets, These were the Class 130 (2007), Class 112 (2010) and Class 730
(2012).
In addition,
North America and Russia each have seven Talgo trainsets. Since 2016, Russia
has been using these to operate the Moscow to Berlin service, for which a
variable gauge is required.
Uzbekistan
took delivery of two Russian-gauge 250km/h Talgo trains in 2011. In 2017, Saudi
Arabia inaugurated its high-speed service with 35 Talgo 350 trains running at
300km/h, for which Bombardier supplied the power car bogies, propulsion and
control equipment.
Talgo unveiled its Avril concept for an advanced 380km/h train in 2010 and now has orders for 30 of these trains for Spain. Although Talgo trains normally have low floors, an Avril variant offers step-free access from HS2’s 1115mm platforms.
Talgo Avril.
In November
Talgo announced that its preferred location for building HS2 trains is the
disused power station at Longannet in Scotland. This would be a 70,000 square
metre plant employing at least a thousand people. An Innovation Centre would
also be developed at Chesterfield. A Talgo statement advised that the company
aims for “true UK manufacturing”, instead of assembling a kit of parts from
overseas.
Only one winner
Each bidder
will probably be spending around £10 million on this bid, which only one of
them can win. Yet HS2’s future passengers will certainly be the winners from
its train procurement. The Frecciarossa, Avelia, Velaro Novo, Oaris and Avril
are all exceptional trains, evolved from hard won experience and a wealth of
expertise. Interestingly, much of this is the result of the current bidders
working together on various high-speed train projects.
The bidders
all state that their trains will meet the HS2 tender requirements of
energy-efficiency, ease of maintenance and flexible state-of-the-art passenger
accommodation. By 2020, the HS2 procurement process will have quantified all
these claims to establish which train offers the lowest whole-life cost to
determine who will build these trains. Until then, readers may judge for
themselves which one is most likely to win the HS2 bid.
The
construction of high-speed railways in Japan, France, Germany and Spain has
also given a boost to their respective train builders, who are now competing to
build HS2’s trains. When HS2 opens in 2026, it will be 62 years since Japan and
45 years since France inaugurated their high-speed rail services. Despite this
late start, it is to be hoped building the UK’s high-speed trains will bring a
resurgence in UK train building.
A nice word cloud will words related to pollution. All of which are hovering above a large, industrial city.
European
Environmental Agency figures show that, per passenger kilometre, rail
transport’s CO2 emissions are respectively 28 and 11 per cent of those on road
and air transport. Nevertheless, however good rail’s environmental credentials,
the industry can and has to do much more to both reduce its carbon footprint
and reduce harmful emissions.
This message
was stressed by various speakers at the recent Railway Industry Association’s
Innovation Conference. In his presentation on innovating to improve passenger
services, Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines stressed the importance of
the decarbonisation agenda and advised that recent electrification schemes had
been delivered to budget.
In her
presentation Claire Porter, TfL’s head of transport systems engineering,
referred to a recent study that concluded poor air quality was responsible for
9,000 deaths a year in London.
Presentations from Network Rail’s R&D team included the sustainability aspect of the Shift to Rail programme and Professor Clive Roberts advised how the UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) is working both with Network Rail, to reduce electrification clearances, and with Porterbrook, on the development of the Hydroflex hydrogen train. M.A.D.E. (Materials, Automation, Data and Energy) pitches included Warwick Manufacturing Groups’ light-weighting and hybrid propulsion and the G-volution technology.
Porterbrook/BCRRE HydroFlex demonstrator.
Decarbonisation projects
The
G-volution patented dual-fuel technology uses its optimiser to optimise
combustion introducing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to co combust in
an existing diesel engine. The quantity
of diesel required is therefore reduced as the LNG replaces it but the engine
always retains its ability to run on 100% diesel should the secondary fuel
(LNG) not be available.
This enables
particulate emissions to be reduced by 90 percent and a CO2 reduction of up to
44 per cent. The technology enables the dual-fuel engine to perform and operate
exactly as if it were running on 100%
diesel. With the reduced fuel cost, its pay-back period is estimated to be two
to three years.
This technology has been proven on road with over 300 lorries in the UK covering over 50
million kms that are part-fuelled by liquid natural gas, stored at minus 190°C
in a cryogenic tank.
RSSB has
part-funded the installation of this technology to a Grand Central Class
180 unit that will be operational and demonstrated on network at the end of the
year.
As Rail Engineer reported in December (issue 170), RSSB recently launched competitions offering funding for decarbonisation projects. In January, it was announced that five decarbonisation projects had each been awarded £345,000 in the “First of a Kind” competition run by Innovate UK on behalf of the Department for Transport. These were:
Trialling an Eminox exhaust after-treatment system on a South Western Railway Porterbrook Class 159 unit – although such systems are widely fitted to HGVs, this will be its first use on a railway vehicle;
Fitting a Class 66 freight locomotive with a Vortex exhaust system, the improved gas scavenging of which is expected to reduce particulate emissions by 50 per cent and reduce fuel consumption;
Unipart’s development of digital displacement pump transmission which, unlike conventional transmissions, is highly efficient at low speeds;
The “Riding Sunbeams” project to use solar power for third-rail DC traction;
Using Steamology technology – superheated steam generated from tanks of compressed hydrogen and oxygen drive a turbine which generates electricity – to power a range extender to charge the batteries in a Vivarail Class 230 unit.
The Decarbonisation journey
The second morning of the conference included presentations by Andy Mellors, managing director of the South Western trains franchise and chair of the IMechE’s Railway Division, Philippa Oldham, head of national network programmes for the Advanced Propulsion Centre and Andrew Kluth, RSSB’s lead carbon specialist.
Andy Mellors, managing director of the South Western trains franchise and chair of the IMechE’s Railway Division.
The
presentation given by Andy Mellors (right) was entitled “The Decarbonisation
Journey”. He noted that it was now ten years since the Climate Change Act gave
the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the
year 2050 is at least 80 per cent lower than the 1990 baseline and that,
although the UK had reduced carbon emissions by 43 per cent since 1990, there
was still some way to go.
He advised
that the DfT have set his, and other, franchises challenging targets in respect
of carbon reduction per passenger kilometre. This shows that, when trains are
lengthened, they should not be empty during off-peak hours and that more
passengers travelling by rail helps meet this target.
Hence, it’s
clearly important that rail gives passengers what they want. Andy referred to
Transport Focus information about passenger priorities which showed that, after
value for money and getting a seat, greater punctuality, fewer cancellations
and reduced journey time were important. He noted that none of these passenger
priorities were concerned with what was “under the bonnet” so felt that
passengers should be asked about the importance of carbon reduction in future
surveys.
He also
showed fleet reliability comparisons for three eras of diesel and electric
multiple that, in all cases, showed that electric units were twice as reliable
in terms of miles per technical incident (causing more than three minutes
delay). Electric trains also offer faster, quieter trains and their
acceleration enables them to stop at more stations.
Electrification
therefore gives passengers what they want. Indeed, Andy noted that the
introduction of electric trains on the Thames Valley lines had transformed the
passenger experience. It also has good carbon credentials as, per passenger
kilometre, diesel trains emit three times the carbon of electric trains.
For all
these reasons, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers recommends that the UK
Government rethinks its cancellation of electrification programmes and moves
forward with a more innovative and long-term approach with an electrification
rolling programme that can create skills and careers and develop supply chains.
Andy was pleased to see that the interim report of the rail industry
decarbonisation task force had concluded that “electrification is the better
economic choice for an intensively used railway” and that its “costs and
disruption are best minimised with a steadily managed programme rather than an
intensive rollout of electrification”.
However,
alternative traction needs to be considered on lines for which electrification
is an unrealistic proposition. In his previous role as engineering director of
First Great Western, Andy was pleased to have been involved in the development
of the self-powered Class 769 “Flex” unit, which can also operate on overhead
and third-rail electrification. This is soon to be operational on the Reading
to Gatwick Airport service, where it will be powered by the third rail for most
of the time.
Work also
needs to be done to reduce the emissions of diesel trains, especially freight
trains, for which innovation is required such as the decarbonisation projects
mentioned above.
Andy noted that the Riccardo team that won last year’s Railway Challenge included automotive graduates. He felt this showed the potential for cross-sector innovation.
Class 387 Electrostar at London Paddington. (Luke Deaves)
Automotive roadmaps
Philippa Oldham explained how the automotive sector is subject to unprecedented technological change as it develops propulsion technologies to respond to numerous environmental and societal pressures as well as legally binding CO2 targets and tailpipe emission targets.
She noted
the complex relationship between CO2 and tailpipe emissions, as shown by a
recent increase in CO2 emissions from road transport due to the reduction in
the sales of more efficient diesel cars as a result of concerns from tailpipe
emissions. She also mentioned that, as the Government’s “road to zero” strategy
was primarily concerned with electric vehicles, it could be difficult to fund
research to improve internal combustion engines, despite them being needed for
heavy duty vehicles for the foreseeable future. In this respect, there is an
analogy with the difficulties of decarbonising rail freight vehicles.
To support
the development of the required automotive technologies, the Advanced
Propulsion Centre has produced its roadmap report. This considers the types of
technologies needed for cars, buses and commercial/off-highway vehicles up to
2040 and has roadmaps for electrical energy storage, electric machines, power
electronics, thermal propulsion systems and lightweight vehicles and powertrain
structures. These show how specific technologies need to develop to provide the
required targets.
Of these,
the electrical energy storage roadmap is particularly relevant for
non-electrified rail traction. This gives targets for cost and energy density
as well as detailing technologies needed to improve electrolytes, separators,
binders, solvents, anodes, cathodes and casings.
Phillippa noted that there were significant emissions associated with the production of batteries (the respective emissions for petrol and battery cars have been estimated to be 5.6 and 8.8 tonnes CO2) and that batteries generally cannot be recycled as they are not designed for this.
GB Railfreight class 66/7 no 66751 reverses a rake of loaded coal hoppers off the Thoresby colliery branch line. (Derek Wilson)
The taskforce
Andrew Kluth
explained how UK carbon emissions were being reduced with power accounting for
a 60 per cent reduction between 2012 and 2017. However, emissions from
transport had increased by four per cent over this period. Although the sector
was becoming more efficient, more people were travelling. Within the transport
sector, rail accounts for two per cent of all emissions.
His presentation explained how the rail industry decarbonisation taskforce had a mission to move UK rail to the lowest possible carbon energy base by 2040. Its purpose was to draft the rail industry’s response to the Minister’s vision to remove diesel-only trains from the tracks by 2040. He advised that the transport sector’s climate change target was likely to be net zero by 2050 and that this might be accelerated to net zero by 2040. Hence the industry had to consider how to meet this challenge.
The taskforce had recently produced its interim report. This showed traction energy accounted for 63 per cent of all carbon emissions (37 per cent diesel, 26 per cent electric). It had particularly considered the various traction types for non-electrified lines. The final report is due in the late spring. Andrew explained that the vast majority of rail journeys were, for some part, on the electrified network and so the task force was considering how to use this network to charge batteries for the part of the journey on non-electrified lines. They were also considering alternative self-powered traction for long journeys away from the electrified network.
In this way
the final report will identify where electrification is likely to be the best
option and where it is never likely to be an option. It will also determine
where journey demands off the electrified network would be suitable for battery
operation, now or at a reasonable time in the future, and where it won’t be.
The task
force’s interim report has concluded that electrification is “currently the
most carbon efficient power supply” and that “in general, electrification is
the better economic choice for an intensively used railway”.
However, it
does understate the benefits of electrification – for example, the executive
summary doesn’t mention its conclusion that electrification is appropriate for
intensively used railways. Furthermore “most carbon efficient” underplays the
fact that electrification is three times more carbon efficient than diesel as
shown by data in RSSB report T1145: Options for Traction Energy Decarbonisation
in Rail which also estimates that CO2 emissions from diesel trains by 2040 will
be halved as, by then, the proportion of electricity generated by renewables is
expected to have increased significantly.
Why the term
“currently most carbon efficient” has been used is not clear. There figures in
RSSB report T1145 show that electrification will be the most carbon efficient
form of traction in 2040. Furthermore, any self-powered traction requires
onboard energy conversion, which incurs significant thermodynamic or chemical
losses whereas electric trains only have minor on board efficiency losses.
The interim
report considers the suitability of various types of traction for use beyond
the electrified network but does not consider their performance. For example,
the fact that bi-mode trains have a lower power-to-weight ratio in diesel mode
than in electric mode is not mentioned. Furthermore, the interim report does
not consider the requirement for medium-speed trains with high acceleration,
needed for commuter services that stop at many stations.
Speaking to
Rail Engineer, Andrew did stress that the interim report was very much “work in
progress” and emphasised that the final report would address all relevant
issues.
After the high cost overruns, on the recent electrification projects, it is understandable that the UK Government has lost faith in electrification. In this respect, the RIA electrification cost challenge report has done a valuable job in demonstrating that electrification can be, and is being, delivered in a cost-effective manner.
However, government also need to be convinced why further electrification is required, as Andy Mellors and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have stated. The final report of industry’s decarbonisation task force is a valuable opportunity to do just this.
A full report of all aspects of RIA’s innovation conference will appear in the May 2019 issue.
HS2 is being built, an Act of Parliament has set up HS2 Ltd,
funding is in place and, crucially, construction has begun in earnest this
year. We are breaking ground on a transformational piece of national
infrastructure, and in advanced discussions with a diverse range of
stakeholders and local communities about how we maximise the benefits of the
project for the whole country.
So why do we continue to hear politicians reheating tired
and flawed arguments about HS2? That train has long since departed. A choice
between HS2 and regional rail improvements is no choice at all, we are already
delivering HS2 and we will deliver both.
So, what does this mean about the future discussions to be
had? It means talking about complementary expansion, upgrade, and integration
of the existing network. It is not credible to pretend that we have a choice
between improving the existing rail infrastructure and delivering HS2. They are
separate but strongly related questions. Political choices are so rarely
‘either or’, and more often should be ‘both’.
In presenting the choice of rail investment as one between
HS2 and regional schemes, political leaders and commentators betray the
benefits of building both. As an industry we should make the case for HS2 and
its integration with Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Connect.
Government policy is to build HS2, both phases one and two,
and to improve regional rail connectivity through schemes like Northern
Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Connect. To do one without the other is a foolhardy
choice and does a great disservice to the country. Nowhere would feel the full
benefits of HS2 if we see it as a binary choice between HS2 and other
programmes to better connect our regions. The great towns and cities across the
North and Midlands, from Bradford to Birmingham, need both.
Suggested design for Birmingham Curzon Street HS2 station.
There are opportunities across the country to improve
connectivity, boost jobs, and regenerate towns and cities which, for too long,
have lacked the tools to succeed. These are opportunities that are realised and
maximised through the HS2 network being integrated with NPR and Midlands
Connect.
HS2 is building on a renaissance of delivering high quality
infrastructure projects in the UK and, through that, creating and retaining
highly skilled jobs and boosting economic growth. Currently, HS2 is supporting
over 7,000 jobs. This will rise to 30,000 at the peak of construction.
Importantly, 70 per cent of these jobs will be based outside of London.
Right now, over 250 apprentices have worked on HS2 and, over
the lifetime of the project, 2,000 apprenticeships will be delivered. This next
generation of industry leaders will experience working on a world class
infrastructure project, an opportunity that will shape their careers and
understanding of the industry for years to come. HS2 will develop future
geologists, architects, and horticulturalists, as well as engineers, project
managers, and designers.
HS2 will be integrated with Midlands Connect and Northern
Powerhouse Rail, amplifying and widening the scope for meaningful
apprenticeships. Crucially, it will develop these skills all over the country
and for the benefit of the whole country. The careers of these highly skilled
workers do not begin and end with one project; these workers are a national
asset and part of a workforce fit for the future.
These projects, when viewed holistically, are about transforming the economic geography of the country. The North has just over 15 million people, with a gross value added of £315 billion to the economy. In London, with just over half that number of people, they are producing around £600 billion Gross Value Added. We know that the North is underperforming, and we know that part of the problem is connectivity east to west, as well as north to south.
Preliminary design for Leeds HS2 station.
The Strategic Transport Plan for the North of England offers
a £70 billion vision for the future, targeted at supporting 850,000 fulltime
additional jobs, and 100 billion gross value added by 2050. HS2, NPR, Midlands
Connect, the Transpennine Route Upgrade and the improvements to the East Coast
main line are all part of the solution.
Key to this is capacity and connectivity between cities in
the North, for which the benefits are only truly gained if we integrate NPR
with HS2. Currently, only two million people can get to four of the major
cities within 90 minutes – with NPR that will rise to nearly 10 million.
By increasing the average journey speed in the North, from
just nine miles an hour faster than a car to up to 125 mph, or 140 mph when
operating on HS2 lines, we will see the journey from Sheffield to Leeds reduced
from 43 minutes to 28, with four trains per hour instead of just one. There
will be thousands of additional seats between the great hubs of Manchester and
Leeds every hour. This current programme means thinking holistically about how
we use HS2 as the main artery of a new kind of rail network.
High Speed Rail Industry Leaders (HSRIL) represents
companies with an interest in high speed rail projects. Our members’ businesses
are located across the length and breadth of the country, as well as around the
world. We know what benefits rail can bring, we see the benefits on the ground
but also in the strong economic evidence base.
Of course, we are champions of high-speed rail, but our
voices are not the most significant in this debate. It is the political and
business leaders in the North, the Midlands and the rest of the country that
are crying out of the politicking to end and the serious decisions to be taken.
From Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, Leeds City Council Leader Judith Blake, to
West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, they are stepping up to the plate and
demanding that HS2 goes all the way to Manchester and beyond, but that is not
considered in isolation. As an industry, we must provide ballast for those
advocates willing to say it is not ‘either or’ but ‘both’, despite the
political inconvenience it causes for them.
HS2 will leave a lasting legacy on the country. It will
bridge the North-South divide, boost regional economies, and ease pressures on
our ageing infrastructure. The physical and financial legacy of the programme
will only be part of the story. The human side of the story will see HS2
supporting supply-chain businesses and communities across the country. A
generation of professionals will gain skills and experience working on a
globally renowned project, and will go on to do great things in their careers
as a result. HS2 is about so much more than speed or capacity – but we can only
unlock the extra value that it can bring by thinking broadly and deeply about the
future of the country.
Railways are not easy and solutions are not simple.
Politically expedient answers might offer a temporary fix for those craving
headlines, but the problems are multifaceted and the solutions need to be too.
We must, as an industry, continue to challenge the lazy rhetoric around HS2 and
what it means for the country.
There is so much at stake and it is up to us to rise to meet this challenge.
John Downer is a director of High Speed Rail Industry Leaders and Client Account Director – Rail Solutions at Jacobs. However, the views expressed in this piece are his own.
RSSB, the not-for-profit company that is owned by major industry stakeholders and was established as the Rail Safety and Standards Board in April 2003, has recently published its 2019-2024 Business Plan.
This sets out how, over the next five years, RSSB will act to support a safer railway into Control Period 6 (CP6) and beyond. It details how RSSB will meet a range of industry priorities and challenges to put passengers first and focuses on the crucial areas of safety, health and wellbeing, sustainability, efficiency, innovation and the future post-Brexit.
RSSB CEO Mark Phillips
RSSB chief executive Mark Phillips commented: “With a sharp
focus on research, analysis and standards, we are determined to improve the
overall experience for our customers, deliver value for our membership and
reduce our dependence on the membership levy by developing commercial
opportunities including enhanced training and bespoke services.”
Immediate concerns
Over the course of the first year of CP6, RSSB will be supporting
the industry in reducing the effects of poor adhesion conditions, using
improved technology and procedures to achieve better reliability and
resilience, including piloting double variable rate sanders on the British main
line.
A new Health by Design web hub will be launched, containing
key resources for incorporating health and wellbeing within member
organisations, including trialling health and wellbeing training for the
workplace.
Research will continue as part of the PERFORM programme – the
Enabling Better Performance Research Challenge that sets out to achieve
performance improvements and run more trains on time today while improving the
rail performance of tomorrow. This will include research into enabling better
planning and resource management during train disruption.
Building on the work undertaken during CP5, RSSB will continue
to provide the functionality, guidance and training that its members require to
use the industry’s Safety Management Intelligence System (SMIS). This is delivering the safety intelligence a
world-class railway needs with improved linking of data to the tools, models
and systems used by the industry.
The industry strategy for Leading Health and Safety on
Britain’s Railway (LHSBR) will be refreshed, monitoring progress through the
publishing of quarterly updates, working in collaboration with the industry.
And RSSB will support delivery of the industry’s carbon and air quality strategies by identifying, agreeing and systematically collecting environmental metrics for the rail industry to monitor.
A wider context
Any plan takes a while to formulate, and so can be overtaken
by events. The RSSB business plan is no exception. It includes the intention to
agree a revised regulatory framework, including the role of standards with
industry and the Regulator, post-Brexit. As the terms and timing of the UK’s
exit from the EU still haven’t been agreed, the work needed to accomplish this
must be in doubt.
So too is the intention to develop new digital railway
standards based on the requirements from the Digital Railway Programme. Network
Rail’s digital railway is now going to be devolved to five routes across the
country, surely needing a rethink from RSSB as well.
But these are details and both can be worked out when the
situation becomes clearer. As Mark
Phillips said: “RSSB is in a unique position within the rail industry and we
are indispensable when it comes to ensuring best practice in reducing risk and
cost, and maintaining the high levels of safety the industry currently enjoys.”
A guest editorial by Alex Hynes, managing director, ScotRail Alliance
Alex Hynes, managing director – ScotRail Alliance
Network Rail is changing how it operates. Putting Passengers
First is a new model for the organisation, which will make the company more
responsive to the needs of train and freight operators and, ultimately, the
fare paying passenger and freight shipper.
Decisions that affect customers need to be taken closer to
the coal face and the move to a regional structure with greater local
accountability will help Network Rail achieve this.
In my experience, Scotland provides a great environment for
collaborative working. There is more overlap between ScotRail and the Scotland
route than in many of the routes south of the border and Transport Scotland is
a strong client that expects Network Rail and its train operators to work
together. Hence, the Scotland route is already fortunate to have a close
working relationship with its customers, including freight.
For this reason, I expect there to be less change in
Scotland than elsewhere. Perhaps the biggest change is that the regions will
have a much bigger engineering capability, under the leadership of an
engineering director. Although we have some brilliant engineers, engineering
resource in the routes is currently stretched.
The regions will also take over responsibility for project
delivery, with strategy and planning functions also moving as part of the
changes. This will put all the levers of the railway system under the
leadership of a single team that is attuned to local requirements.
A strengthened engineering function is needed to close the
gap between our current PPM performance of 87.6 per cent and our target of 92.5
per cent, with infrastructure failures accounting for a third of all delays and
many of the high-delay incidents earlier in 2018. On certain parts of the
network, we have to aim for no service-affecting failures in the peak. The
strengthened engineering team will determine how this can be achieved. It is
then my job to find the money for their solutions, which could include more
in-built redundancy, intelligent infrastructure to predict potential failures
and standards that consider both safety and reliability.
Standards will be another big change. The intention is that
regional engineering directors will set standards as a collective, administered
by the company. Such company standards will be an irreducible core and will
give regional engineers the flexibility to deal with the very different types
of railways across the UK.
The engineering team will also develop and implement
regional engineering strategies. Although I’m proud that Scotland has delivered
both the Stirling-Dunblane-Alloa and the Shotts electrification schemes early
and to budget, we intend to find better ways of working and drive down costs
further.
As part of the pipeline for the new control period, we are
also currently investigating electrification schemes on other lines but
understand the Scottish Government will only invest in these if we can
demonstrate good value for money.
A whole-system signalling strategy is also being developed,
in consultation with our client and funder, Transport Scotland. This will only
include the digital railway if it delivers the outputs of capacity, journey
time and reliability. The digital railway is not being pursued as an end in
itself – the extent to which it is part of this strategy is a decision to be
taken in the region.
I feel very optimistic about the future as I am certain that the new organisation structure will build on what Network Rail’s routes have already achieved. Bringing engineers and project teams closer to passengers and freight customers will give them a more satisfying role and help drive up performance to keep people and goods moving.
Thanks to Alex Hynes for his guest editorial highlighting
the crucial role of engineers as Network Rail moves towards a more
passenger-focused railway.
An example of the flexible approach to standards he mentions
is the risk-based management of continuous welded rail, as Chris Parker
describes. A risk-based approach is also used to manage earthworks. However, as
Nigel Wordsworth makes clear, this is not easy.
To control the risk from trams overspeeding, Clive Kessell
explains how a tram speed protection system is to be fitted on the Croydon tram
network following its fatal accident in 2016.
Decarbonisation was a key topic at the Railway Industry
Association’s innovation conference, where IMechE Railway Division chair, Andy
Mellors, described how electrification both saves carbon and transforms
services to give passengers what they want. Innovation was also the theme of
the second Plantworx awards – it attracted 120 entries, we name the winners.
The second part of our HS2 train procurement feature
describes pedigree of the bidders who are all offering state-of-the art trains.
These will also reduce the UK’s carbon footprint by attracting passengers from
less carbon-friendly cars and planes. In an opinion piece, John Downer, of
High-Speed Rail Industry Leaders, explains how HS2 will create extra capacity
on the West Coast, Midland and East Coast main lines to the north and boost
regional economies.
For those going to Railtex, we have a preview of the
exhibitors and details of Rail Engineer’s technical seminar programme. Do come
to these presentations or join us at our stand.
Network Rail developed the GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) process to manage and control investment projects – ones that enhance or renew the national rail network as opposed to those involved with routine maintenance of the railway. It was developed in order to minimise and mitigate the risks associated with delivering such projects .
GRIP divides a project into eight distinct stages. The overall approach is product, rather than process, driven and, within each stage, an agreed set of products is delivered.
Output definition.
Feasibility.
Option selection.
Single option development.
Detailed design.
Construction test and commission.
Scheme hand back.
Project close out.
The eight stages of the GRIP process.
The stages in detail
GRIP Stage 1: Output Definition
This stage establishes the scope of investment and and the work being proposed. In particular, it considers:
The objective, scope, timing, and specification
of the enhancement;
Funding for the project and any project risks;
Procurement methodology: what should be undertaken
in development and implementation works;
Any likely interface with existing railway
operations and other relevant projects and route strategies;
Other stakeholder involvement.
GRIP Stage 2: Project Feasibility
Following successful review and prioritisation of the investment proposal, Stage 2 moves the project forward. Where a scheme changes the capability of the railway, for example it changes the timetable or operation of the network, or it integrates with existing major programmes of work, then Network Rail’s System Operator team is likely to sponsor the scheme. Other schemes, such as investment in stations, will be sponsored by Route Enhancement teams.
GRIP Stage 3: Option Selection
At the end of this phase, the following workstreams should
have been completed:
The various options available to complete the
project will have been identified;
Each of these available options will have been
appraised; and
A single option and outline design should be
recommended.
The business case should confirm whether or not the project
is affordable, including consideration of whole-life cost issues, whether it
can be delivered in a reasonable timescale, whether it will provide value for
money, and, on this basis, whether to proceed to detailed design and
implementation.
GRIP Stage 4: Single Option Development
Development of the chosen single option selected in stage 3
commences to create the outline design.
Outline designs are produced, and any technical or legal
issues that could cancel an option or a project are usually identified by this
point.
GRIP Stage 5: Detailed Design
The completion of a robust engineering design that provides
definitive costs, times, resources and risk assessments.
Stage 5 will deliver the full design to which the project
will be built is produced. This includes cost and time estimates.
GRIP Stage 6: Construction, Test and Commission
The project is built to the design and specification detailed
during stage 5. It is tested to confirm everything is operating as specified and
commissioned into use.
GRIP Stage 7: Scheme Handback
Transfer of asset responsibility from the contractor’s
project team to the operator and maintainer.
GRIP Stage 8 – Project close out
The project is formally closed. Contracts are settled and warranties agreed.
Benefit assessments commence and the project team disbands.
Seminars take place in the Rail Engineer Seminar Theatre on stand D61
10:30 – Rail track, real performance Daniel Pyke Product Marketing Manager – Rail, British Steel
Aug 2014 – Tata Steel , Scunthorpe site – Rail products
The
rail industry faces many challenges – mostly doing more with less:
more
trains – less headway
more
life – less cost
more
distance – less time
When
it comes to steel rails, this means that British Steel works with infrastructure
owners to develop rails that deliver more life with less maintenance.
The
company’s research boffins are consistently on the case, developing more
durable steels, but lab testing, however sophisticated, can only reveal so much
about product performance.
So take
a step out of your business attire to don some orange and have a look at
examples of real rail performance:
High
Performance HP335 rail (HPrail®) – heavy freight troubles tired track
Zinoco®
– rail rust reveals hidden horrors
Multi-Life
grooved rail – urban regeneration with a tramway twist
Each
example explores typical track challenges and how smart steel selection
delivers benefits, helping the industry to build stronger railways.
This covers what’s in Daniel Pyke’s talk – more or less…
11:10 – Innovation in collaborative ground risk management using Geospatial Information Systems Gerard McArdle – Senior Engineering Geologist, TSP Projects Callum Irving – Geotechnical Data Manager, TSP Projects
Gerard McArdle
The development of digital ground models has become more widespread over the last few years.
TSP Projects has developed innovative ways of using available technology, working with industry partners such as the British Geological Survey, to improve how information and ground data is managed, assured and shared across organisations. I
If project information and ground management objectives are set and aligned at the start of a project, improved project outcomes can be realised. These can include reducing the programme by early identification of ground risk, increasing productivity in design and construction and developing more accurate cost projections from early project development stages.
Callum Irving
In this seminar, Gerard McArdle and Callum Irving, from teh geotechnical team at TSP Projects, consider the challenges, tools and systems used, such as 3D geological modelling, identification and management of geological and geotechnical hazards, management and assurance of data for use by various parties, efficiencies in collection and the dissemination and use of ground information.
11:50 – KEYNOTE: Devolution and the Digital Railway – A national approach to local needs Stuart Calvert Managing Director, Group Digital Railway, Network Rail
Following
his ‘100-day review’ of Network Rail, new chief executive Andrew Haines
announced that many centralised functions would be devolved out to 13 routes
operating in five regions. This included the Digital Railway, which had been
seen by many as THE WAY to improve signalling and control, and boost capacity,
on a national basis. So how will it now proceed in a devolved environment?
Stuart
Calvert, the new managing director of Group Digital Railway, will address just
that subject in his keynote address to Railtex. Traffic management is still
seen as the way to go, but what of ETCS? Will it be level 2, level 3, or something
partway between? And how will the regions differ in their approaches?
Stuart Calvert is the man with the answers, so it will be highly interesting to hear what he has to say.
12:30 – Hydrogen-powered trains – how they help replace diesel Mike Muldoon Head of Business Development, Alstom
The
rail industry has been set a challenge by government, to replace pure diesel
trains by 2040. Whilst bi-modes and battery EMUs/DMUs may suit mixed routes
with sufficient electrification, there are huge parts of the network that will never
be, and were never planned to be, electrified. These routes tend to be operated
by DMUs, regional trains as Alstom defines them.
It is
in this area that Alstom sees the application of hydrogen fuel-cell trains
helping the industry to meet the challenge and replace diesel. Hydrogen is an
efficient energy store and its use is being considered in a huge range of
applications within the emerging concept of the ‘hydrogen economy’. Whether
used for home heating, industrial processes or powering cars and other modes of
transport, hydrogen offers carbon free solutions to some of the UK’s most
pressing climate change concerns.
Fuel
cells produce nothing but pure water as a by-product of their operation,
eliminating CO2 and toxic particulates. When combined with renewably generated
hydrogen, they offer lower emissions than even today’s electrified routes,
dependent in the national grid.
This talk will explain why hydrogen is viable for this application and how it can be delivered, as a system, to the UK rail network. It will also update listeners on the Breeze concept, unveiled earlier in the year by Alstom and Eversholt Rail as they prepare to convert Class 321 units into Breeze HMUs and start replacing the 2,500 DMU vehicles operating on the UK’s regional railways.
13:10 – Intelligent or closed-loop pantograph Lee Brun Engineering Manager, Faiveley Brecknell Willis
The potentially revolutionary intelligent or closed-loop pantograph from Faiveley Brecknell Willis, a Wabtec company, is currently in service trials in the UK and is fitted with fibre-optic sensors which are paired with GPS and Video equipment.
The sensor system measures various pantograph and OLE interface parameters which can then be used to determine the condition of the pantograph or the overhead line with which it interfaces. This data is then presented via a user dashboard which can be used for condition monitoring of either the pantograph\OLE or to actively control the pantograph for optimum performance and current collection.
The system can be retrospectively fitted to any Faiveley Brecknell Willis pantograph and truly demonstrates the organisation’s innovating ambition and ability to collaborate as the idea was initiated through a 2011 collaborative fund grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
13:50 – KEYNOTE: Labour’s plans for rail Andy McDonald MP Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
The Labour Party, and Her Majesty’s Opposition, have their own views on how the rail industry should be run, how trains should be operated and how the system should be financed. In this presentation, Andy McDonald will explain what Labour’s views and policies are, and how he feels today’s railway could be improved for the benefit of passengers and the Nation.
Seminars take place in the Rail Engineer Seminar Theatre on stand D61
10:30 – OPENING CEREMONY Gordon Wakeford, Co-chair, Rail Supply Group Anna Delvecchio, Commercial Account Director, Amey Darren Caplan, Chief Executive, Railway Industry Association Nicola Hamann, Managing Director, Mack Brooks Exhibitions
Nicola Hamann is the new managing director of show organiser Mack Brooks Exhibitions. Purchased by RELX on behalf of Reed Exhibitions earlier this year, Mack Brooks also organises rail industry exhibitions in France and Italy as well as shows for a number of other sectors around the world, particularly in the fields of industrial fasteners and sheet metalwork.
Darren Caplan joined RIA as Chief Executive in January 2017. Since then he has led the RIA team, with a mission to promote rail supply sector growth and increase RIA’s visibility amongst political and stakeholder decision makers and influencers. Prior to RIA, Darren was for six years chief executive of the Airport Operators Association (AOA), the trade association for UK airports and the sector’s suppliers, where he led award-winning campaigns targeting airport sector growth and fairer levels of aviation tax.
Anna Delvecchio began her career in rail as an apprentice. Now commercial accounts director at Amey, she is currently seconded to the Rail Supply Group and was part of the team that drove through the recently announced Rail Sector Deal between industry and government and is the current Transport Woman of the Year, as announced at the 2018 FTA everywoman in Transport & Logistics Awards.
Gordon Wakeford is head of Siemens Mobility in the UK and also co-chair of the Rail Supply Group, a role he shares with the Secretaries of Sate for Transport and for Business. As such, working with a team that included Philip Hoare of Atkins and Anna Delvecchio of Amey, he was instrumental in developing the Rail Sector Deal.
He will deliver a keynote speech on the topic of the Rail Sector Deal later in the morning.
11:10 – Predictive Maintenance Strategies for Continuous Track Monitoring Deep Desai Business Development & Strategy, Frauscher Tracking Solutions
Reducing
maintenance costs is a task of high importance. Systems, which enable a
complete and continuous monitoring of assets on tracks, can support appropriate
approaches. Additionally, they can provide relevant information to improve
efficiency and traffic management.
Due to
the importance of such applications, and based on the high number of components
that need to be monitored on tracks and trains, a vast number of technologies
and systems are available today to meet all related requirements. This
plurality, as well as the fact that several units might be needed for various
tasks contribute to rising efforts.
The newly developed Frauscher Tracking Solutions FTS provides a vision of an efficient solution to continuously monitor the track health outlining a paradigm shift towards predictive maintenance strategies. By continuously monitoring the wheel-rail interaction, the Frauscher Tracking Solutions FTS detect changes in the condition of various assets at a very early stage. This forms the base for a cost-effective option to continuously monitor components on tracks of a whole network at a glance.
11:50 – KEYNOTE: The Rail Sector Deal – Working together for the future Gordon Wakeford Co-chair, Rail Supply Group
The
Rail Sector Deal will build on the strong partnership working between the rail
sector and the government to exploit the opportunities of new technologies,
improve the efficient use of rail network capacity and enhance the experience
of those who use the railways.
In its
foreword, the Rail Sector Deal states that it will enable companies to drive
innovation, invest in research and development, up-skill the workforce and look
beyond the UK to export markets worldwide. It will provide certainty for the
industry, with clarity and involvement in shaping investment in the railways
for the first time, and, through this collaboration between government and
businesses, it will provide better railways for the country’s rail customers.
In his keynote address, Gordon Wakeford will consider just how implementation of the new Rail Sector Deal will help improve both the railway and its supply chain. What is needed to make it more efficient? And what export opportunities could present themselves once the Rail Sector Deal starts to make itself felt?
It is
too easy to see the railway as a mode of transport, which of course it is, and
not to remember it is also a business – but it is.
12:30 – CBTC or ERTMS? The answer is ATO Ian Jones Key account manager, Siemens Mobility
The
railway industry is seeing unprecedented rates of change. The move towards a
‘digital’ railway has seen a significant acceleration in the adoption of new
technologies, not least those that provide command and control of the trains
themselves.
The
railway press is full of references to technologies including communication-based
train control (CBTC) and the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
These systems unlock capacity and improving safety levels through the use of
secure digital radio messages sent between trackside and train-carried equipment,
allowing levels of throughput and operational flexibility that were not
previously possible.
These
train protection systems are only half the story though; automatic train
operation (ATO) uses computer-based technology to drive every train at the optimum
speed at every location along a track.
Whilst
ATO has been part of the metro railway world for some 50 years, it is new to
main line operation. On London Underground’s Victoria line, a 36 trains-per-hour
timetable is delivered smoothly and efficiently by ATO-driven trains under the
supervision of a world-class control centre solution that continuously
evaluates the state of the railway and makes adjustments to service to maintain
100-second headways.
The Thameslink project takes a similar approach on a heavy suburban system running through severely constrained infrastructure, using ATO not only to ensure that every train can make use of the capacity unlocked by ERTMS, but also to optimise the use of energy and infrastructure as well as minimise wear on critical rolling stock components.
13:10 – How can we digitise the journey to benefit the customer? Mike Hewitt Chief Technical Officer, ADComms
How do
we deliver a customer-focused transport model? The rail industry needs to meet the
challenge of future multimodal journey options, including ride sharing
application, autonomous vehicles, drone-based taxis, personal vehicles, and the
challenges that rail transportation will face from new connected modes of
transportation, and become integrated into one of many options that the
passenger will have.
It’s
no longer just about getting from A to B – the passenger demands connectivity,
information, and reliable infrastructure to get them from their home to their
destination.
How
does the rail supply chain respond to these challenges? What are the
opportunities to introduce technologies like IoT, BlockChain/Distributed Ledger,
Assisted Intelligence, Additive Manufacturing, and Automation to deliver
innovative new solution into legacy infrastructure?
In his
presentation, Mike Hewitt will look at the challenges that connectivity
presents, and the opportunities it enables – at the application of new
technologies, and collaboration that will enable innovation. He will talk about
the security implications and considerations, including cyber security, when
mixing and supporting legacy and connected infrastructure.
Lastly, he will consider the models that the railway will need so that it can engage and collaborate with innovators, SMEs and the large organisations so as to bring true innovation to the rail industry, to allow it to be more responsive, more agile and be able to apply new ways of working that reflect local needs and deliver a resilient, reliable end-to-end journey that places rail at the centre of connected passenger journeys and the centre of freight transportation for the next 50 years.
13:50 – Signal and Stop Board Stand Back survey and assessments Simon Gardiner, Managing Director, Gioconda Steve Jones, Production Manager, Gioconda
Simon Gardiner, Gioconda.
Gioconda
was established in the UK in 2006, specifically to develop desktop signal
sighting tools for the UK rail market.
The award of two Network Rail framework contracts helped to establish the business as a primary source for UK signal sighting and driver briefing. Since then, Gioconda has worked on some of the biggest and smallest projects in the UK and prides itself on the quality, accuracy and efficiency of its services.
In this presentation, Gioconda will take you through the process it uses to capture, process and report on cab stand back to stop board validity. The speakers will explain to delegates:
How to use simple train-borne video correlated to aerial imagery for a stage 1 check;
Options for a more detailed, higher accuracy, stage 2 check;
The modelling process to use where remedial action is required.
The presentation will demonstrate how this can be used in an underground situation and talk about the varying limitations imposed by operators when arranging to capture data using in service and special train services.
14:30 – ZF EcoWorld: Efficiency with Connectivity Steve Brew Key Account Manager – Rail Drive Systems, ZF Friedrichshafen
ZF
Friedrichshafen is involved on a number of projects to introduce high
efficiency ZF EcoWorld2 transmissions as retrofit option for existing DMU
trains in the UK.
This
is also an opportunity to showcase ZF Smart condition monitoring technology
being developed in line with the company’s ‘See = Think = Act’ principle.
In his presentation, Steve Brew will aim to provide an introduction to the feature of ZF EcoWorld2 with an overview of ZF Connect@Rail digitisation for Rail applications.
15:10 – Trust: How cyber secure are you? Steve Little Cyber Lead, Frazer-Nash
There
is an unprecedented amount of investment, and hence change, in the UK rail
sector – spanning major infrastructure projects, the replacement of rolling
stock, staff processes and procedures, and methods for accessing train
information and buying tickets. The introduction of new systems is complicated
by having to co-exist with legacy systems and practices dating back over many
decades.
The
rail sector has, for many years, been an evangelist in ensuring the safety of
passengers and staff. However, as a consequence of digitalisation and
legislation, the threat posed from cyber space is being considered –
specifically how to identify, protect, detect, respond or recover from a
cyber-attack.
Typically,
this has been considered solely a technology problem, but complex enterprises,
such as the rail sector, are an amalgam of People, Processes, Information,
Technology and Facilities (PPITF).
Countering
these cyber threats, and the risks they pos,e requires a whole system approach
and understanding of PPITF and the interdependencies between them. In tackling this
challenge the rail sector could learn lessons from other sectors, balancing the
new with the legacy, ensuring any mitigation or response is both appropriate
and proportionate.
As part of his presentation, Steve Little will provide insight into how other sectors such as energy and defence understand and mitigate their cyber risk by considering PPITF holistically.
As the world population increases – and becomes increasingly urban – the need for efficient transportation networks becomes ever more pressing. The pressures on modern train operating companies increase every year – as networks reach capacity and assets age. Efficient management of rail assets requires accurate, authoritative data delivered in a timely manner.
The focus of rail asset lifecycle management technology (which encompass real-time remote diagnostics and proactive component condition monitoring) is the automated collection and analysis of data to allow for high performance asset management and planning, allowing train operators to increase utilization and reduce maintenance costs. The lifeblood of these solutions is actionable intelligence derived from the processing of the abundance of raw data available from sensors on-board and wayside.
Drawing on recent project examples from across the European passenger and Australian freight sectors, this presentation will look at the benefits of rail asset lifecycle management and demonstrate how many customers are deriving real value from these solutions.
