Home Blog Page 144

Safer isolations

In 1883, Magnus Volk heralded the dawn of a new era in Great Britain with the opening of Volk’s Electric Railway, which, 135 years later, is still transporting pleasure seekers along Brighton promenade and is the world’s oldest operating electric railway.

Since then, the use of electricity to power our trains has been ever expanding – initially on London Underground, then with some suburban lines prior to the First World War.

Further electrification followed during the interwar years, with large investment by the Southern Railway. This included the world’s first electrified intercity route between Bournemouth and London.

In the years following the Second World War, rail electrification in and around London and the South East was further expanded. The 750V DC third-rail system south of the river Thames continued expanding until 1988, and now extends from London to as far as Folkestone in the east and Weymouth in the west.

Since privatisation, traffic on this part of the network has doubled, and some of the original equipment and infrastructure is still in use. Most new UK electrification since the 1960s has been 25kV AC overhead line, but, given the scale of the electrification in the south east, the massive capital cost of any conversion means that 750V DC with ground-level conductor rail is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

With the increase in passenger numbers, and the age of the infrastructure, one of the biggest challenges in rail operation is the time available to carry out essential maintenance. On the DC routes, this is often even more crucial because of the higher traffic load and wear – all in all, more work to do and less time to do it.

Unlike an overhead system, the conductor rail must almost always be isolated to allow even simple tasks (like replacing a sleeper by hand), which, of course, requires more planning and coordination as well as the services of a strapping team to make sure the power is off and to help prevent inadvertent re-energisation of the associated DC conductor rails. All of which leaves even less time to replace that sleeper!

Strapping for safety

So, what does the strapping team do? Once the block is granted, all the sections of conductor rail in the possession are isolated by either the electrical control room or by staffing of the relevant substations. Members of the strapping team then go to the extremities of the block and to key points in between, check by testing to be sure the conductor rail is off, and fit short-circuiting straps between the conductor rail and the running rails before signing off the relevant forms. Only then can works begin.

In the event of the conductor rail accidentally being re-energised, the straps that were fitted by the strapping team will create a direct short circuit to the negative return path of the DC system, thereby causing the DC circuit-breakers associated with the isolation to trip immediately, protecting the personnel at the worksite.

The strapping team has a key safety role, but its job also carries considerable danger. Not all the tracks near the worksite will be blocked or isolated, so not only is there a significant risk of being struck by a train, but the straps might accidentally be put on a live conductor rail. And there’s also the issue of finding their way in the dark to exactly the right place, in all weather conditions, in both remote country and some fairly hostile urban areas, all while carrying testing equipment, straps, bar, gloves, brush, first aid kit and goggles, without delaying those who are keen to get working as soon as possible.

Over the years, the processes have been developed and honed, and it usually runs fairly well, however, it’s far from risk-free. Something better, quicker and safer is needed.

Improved methods

This traditional way of strapping is termed a B2 isolation. The safety guide for strap application has six steps – see box. It all takes time and puts workers at risk.

Network Rail was under two pressures to make improvements. Its own desire to reduce “boots on the ballast” and keep its workforce in a position of safety at all times was combined with a need to comply, in all respects, with the Electricity At Work Regulations.

Bring in B4

As a first step to automating the process, Network Rail developed the B4 isolation. This uses a negative short-circuiting device (NSCD) to bond the conductor rails and keep people working on track safe. However, the difference is that, unlike the SCS that has to be connected manually on the track, the NSCD works at the substation by flicking a switch.

In March 2014, Network Rail awarded an electrification and plant framework contract to McNicholas (since July 2017, part of Kier Group, a leading infrastructure, buildings, developments and housing group), as well as a similar one for Kent and Sussex. Wessex was subsequently chosen as the pilot area for the ‘Safer Isolations’ programme, with the work to be performed under the framework contract, by McNicholas (now Kier) as the leading contractor due to its extensive experience in delivering power, telecoms and signalling contracts across the rail network.

Antagrade Electrical, with its long history of design, installation, testing and commissioning on rail power systems and key Level A resources, was asked by Kier to come up with a detailed electrical design for the new NSCD equipment for B4 isolations. This involved attaching a control panel to each substation, together with fitting the short-circuit equipment.

Once the design was proven, the next phase was to improve the speed with which an isolation could be taken still further. Many of the substations were not situated near access points. This meant that, although the isolation process could be undertaken by one individual rather than a team as before, they still had to walk alongside the active railway, often in the dark and maybe for several hundred metres, to reach the local control panel.

For this reason, three months after Kier received its contract from Network Rail and enlisted the help of Antagrade on the project, Sella Controls was asked for a communications solution to bring the control panel to the access point.

The proposal was to use equipment from Sella Controls’ Tracklink® product range. Andrew Yard, Sella Controls’ engineering lead for the project, explained that this involved using the company’s proven point-to-point (P2P) equipment to provide a working solution. This allows the control panel to be mounted remotely from the substation, connected to it by copper cables running through the troughing alongside the track. The remote panel can therefore be housed at the side of an access point, or a car park, to allow simple and easy operation without having to enter railway property.

James Bentley, Antagrade’s project manager, explained that, by providing each of the key DC circuit breakers, or in some cases the entire DC switchboard, with its own negative short-circuiting switch, and installing a control panel in an accessible location (usually by the roadside), the strapping team only needs to drive to the relevant panel(s) and request the control room to open the breakers.

Once the power has been disconnected from the relevant section, the local personnel can operate the control panel switches to apply the negative connection via the short-circuiting devices. This then ‘interlocks’, or disables, the operation of the DC Circuit breakers, preventing them from being closed once the NSCDs have been operated. The correct operation of the shorting devices and absence (or presence) of traction voltages are all indicated to the local operator at the control panel.

B4 becomes B5

The introduction of B4 isolations was a great success, both on Wessex, where Kier was installing them, and also in Sussex, where Siemens was doing similar work. However, it was on Wessex where the programme was taken to the next stage.

A B5 isolation was developed by Kier and Antagrade, bringing a number of short-circuit devices under the control of a single panel that would allow a longer section of the railway to be isolated at once, significantly improving access time. The solution utilises the combination of Sella Controls’ Tracklink RTU, acting as a consolidated control panel (CCP), and multiple Tracklink P2P units to provide the remote operation of NSCD equipment across a number of substation locations. Each CCP has the capability to control up to five individual local panels.

There are currently four sections under trial. One application is installed on a section between Staines and Datchet (covering three sites), with the remaining three sections between Guilford and Havant (covering twenty sites).

This test route, as well as being a busy railway, is well chosen for other reasons. The substation at Wraysbury, near Windsor Great Park, can only be reached down the railway tracks. Similarly, Datchet substation lies alongside the local golf club, again preventing easy access. A remote control solution is therefore essential, and one that can isolate long lengths of track is a bonus.

The B5 programme in Wessex is an operational trial, with the results to be assessed before a national roll-out. It is not a traction SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) isolation, rather each CCP forms its own discrete network with its associated local panels. B5 is a SIL 0 system (safety integrity level 0 – not technically part of the standard, which starts at SIL 1, but commonly used to classify safety systems that are not required to meet a safety integrity level standard), allowing one person to short, isolate and reinstate. This contrasts with the similar ‘emergency traction discharge’ system on London Underground, which allows a train driver to kill the power in the event of an emergency but needs clearance from a second person before power can be reinstated and is a SIL 2 system.

So B5 isolations will make access in the short night-time windows quicker and lengthen the time available for productive work. However, paradoxically, the B4 and B5 equipment, substations and NSCDs, had to be installed without that benefit as it wasn’t yet in place!

“Installation of the NSCDs is not, in itself, complicated,” commented Sam Eversfield, Kier’s assistant project manager, “but installing them in a rail setting adds pressure. The work has to be carried out on a Saturday night, within tight time constraints, to allow for the train companies to reopen lines.

“The challenge has been in accessing the sites, which are often in the middle of the countryside such as a farmer’s field.” With rail-mounted Kirow cranes being used to lift equipment into position, it all has to work like clockwork.

Ongoing success

Network Rail is very pleased with the way the introduction of NSCDs is progressing, both on the Bournemouth and Brighton main lines. Project engineer Peter Roberts, based at Waterloo, reported: “There have been a number of instances where a strapping team has incorrectly installed the straps, not tested before touch, installed the straps at the wrong location on a line, or even on a wrong line, and most importantly, have sometimes suffered serious injury as a result of errors or omissions. And that, of course, is after reaching the strapping point itself, having sometimes walked great distances.

“When operating the NSCDs, there is no risk of providing a negative short circuit in the wrong location, or incorrectly. The time taken for a number of sections to be shorted out reduces dramatically.

“As an example, there is a trial installation at Ludgate Cellars, where there are fourteen NSCD units. The strap men there has advised that, as a single team, they would require two hours to strap the same fourteen sections using traditional methods. When timed using the NSCDs, they took seven minutes, and that was the first time they used them in anger. They also did so from just within the Substation compound.”

Kier, Sella Controls and Antagrade are currently working on 26 B4 sites for Phase 1 and another 36 for Phase 2 of the programme. Phase 1 is due to be completed by the end of March 2019 and will include 198 NSCD units while Phase 2 involves installing 237 of them. Work has so far covered lines from Waterloo going out through Surrey to Hampshire and the first isolation has already gone into service.

After all of this hard work, it’s quite possible that B4 and B5 isolations won’t actually last very long. The ultimate goal is to control all of the NSCDs from the central traction-power control desks at the rail operating centres (ROCs), although no doubt the facility for local operation will still exist if needed.

Safer Isolations isn’t just a DC project either. Already work is being carried out in Scotland and on Merseyside to see how the lessons learned can be applied to AC traction power as well, but that’s another story…

Read more: The past, present and future: A look at electrification of the UK’s railways

 

The past, present and future: A look at electrification of the UK’s railways

Standing here on the platforms of the electrified York station, breathing in a fog of diesel fumes from five diesel trains awaiting departure, it is easy to wonder what went wrong. Indeed, the East Coast main line (ECML) proved that the UK could deliver rail electrification efficiently, with 2,250 single-track kilometres electrified for £671 million (adjusted for 2018) (issue 158, December 2017). The programme took seven years from authorisation to completion and was just eight weeks late compared to the original schedule.

As a result, passengers enjoyed faster, cleaner, quieter and more reliable electric train services and passenger revenues increased by 30 per cent; rolling stock procurement and maintenance costs were significantly reduced; track maintenance costs were cut as lightweight electric trains replaced heavy diesels – and fuel costs fell too.

The industry had demonstrated an ability to safely and successfully deliver efficient electrification. It had a proven, rapid financial case and the teams were well-practiced.

So why, twenty years later, am I standing in a haze of diesel?

In fact, the industry delivered further commuter electrification in Birmingham and Leeds before falling silent in 1995. This happened two years after the Railways Act entered law, which required co-operation between the train operating companies (TOCs) and Railtrack for track access. The TOCs stood to gain the most from electrification, but all of the infrastructure plans were developed by Railtrack, which incurred the costs. And, with franchises similar in length to electrification projects, only truly outstanding business cases like GNER’s Electric Horseshoe (Leeds-Hambleton Junction electrification) were developed.

The climate was also quite different at that time, with environmental concerns yet to become mainstream and oil prices being still (relatively) modest. Against this background, it was faster and easier in the new structure to buy bigger, more powerful diesels, despite the fact this would only drive cost increases in the long term.

Lessons learned

First and foremost, the railway is a system. No engineering discipline can be considered in isolation, and neither can the business case. Successful electrification is designed as a system. A decision as innocuous as the choice of supply locations affects everything from route operability (business case) to the number, location, size and temperature of required OLE conductors, which in turn affects everything from tension lengths and maintenance costs to height and strength of structures; which in turn affects visual impact and overturning moment of structures; which in turn affects numbers of structures, pile lengths and installation rates achievable with construction trains. A butterfly effect of impacts from seemingly unrelated disciplines.

From development of capacity and journey time improvements to the procurement of electrification and rolling stock, costs and impacts must be considered as a single system. It is cheaper to make compromises at the design stage than adapt infrastructure to train, or vice-versa.

Secondly, project teams must be free, in practice, to implement the most pragmatic, efficient solutions that suit the route and operators in question. The ECML electrification was delivered by an integrated multi-disciplinary team that established close working relationships with the train operators and route. Decisions lay largely in the hands of the people who were responsible for the cost, schedule and disruption of the work. The highly prescriptive and technology-specific nature of current standards, developed separately from the delivery and customer teams, is perhaps the biggest constraint facing UK electrification designers.

Thirdly, we must be willing to learn from best practice. The ECML electrification was not an experiment, it was an evolution of proven system designs. With decision-makers accountable for delivery, projects were not used to experiment with wholly new designs, and standards were not changed repeatedly during design. The lessons of previous schemes were learned. Given sufficient time and money, any system can be made to work once, but more complex or difficult to install ideas were not repeated. Importantly, the UK did not have to fund all the learning – successful innovations from across Europe were incorporated and, in turn, the UK exported its own innovations.

What has changed?

The fundamentals of rail electrification still hold true and electrified railways are cheaper by all measures. Electric rolling stock is cheaper to buy, maintain and fuel, overall public performance measure (PPM) is markedly improved, journey times fall and track maintenance costs are reduced. The economics in the 1981 DfT/British Rail Review of Mainline Electrification have improved with rising traffic volumes and, given efficient installation, the business case is stronger than ever.

Other factors were not considered in 1981 – the government placed no value on pollution (and UK electricity then was 40 per cent coal fired and just two per cent renewable). Environmental protection is now government policy – by 2020, UK electricity will be 40 per cent renewable and zero per cent coal. Electric railways are trending towards, not just zero-emission at the point of use, but zero-carbon fuel overall. They are the only credible clean, green option for mass transit.

With a more intensively operated network, route capacity is becoming of greater significance. On mixed-traffic railways, electrification delivers capacity and PPM benefits, accelerating faster from stations and climbing hills more quickly. Sadly, such benefits are not captured in business cases reliant on journey time analysis of a single, unconstrained express train, but, when simulating an entire train service, the benefits are clear.

The economics of electric rail are stronger than ever, and railways across Europe continue their steady, rolling electrification programmes of typically a few hundred track-kilometres per year. Yet today, on the Great Western main line (GWML), electrification is being de-scoped and electric trains fitted with diesel engines. Rail Engineer reported in November 2017 (issue 157) that the electrification cost had risen to seven times the ECML cost per track kilometre and, with the programme running several years late, it is delivering at half the ECML speed. In fact, the warning signs of cost escalation have been with us since the West Coast Route Modernisation.

Capital costs in the UK must be brought back closer to international norms if electric railways are to continue to have a standalone business case, with technology changes offering the opportunity both for reduced costs and improved benefits.

New power for trains

Echoing changes in road transport, new energy storage vectors, such as hydrogen and battery, are creating new possibilities for rail. Although hydrogen trains produce no harmful emissions themselves, CO2 and other pollution is released today in the production of hydrogen from petrochemicals, (although still cleaner than diesel). However, production from electrolysis of water is possible, which makes hydrogen another means for carrying electrical energy from a generator to a train, where it can be returned to electricity in a fuel cell.

With electrolysis, hydrogen trains require around three times the electrical energy of an electric train for each kilometre travelled. This is due to the energy losses of this cycle, including the energy required to compress hydrogen to very high pressures for storage. Hydrogen stored at 350 bar has only one seventh of the volumetric energy density of diesel and this, combined with its lower energy efficiency than electrification, means it is not a suitable fuel for high-power or long range applications. However, while hydrogen is unlikely to change the economics of the mainline railway, it may offer a new option for rural and remote lines.

Battery electric cars and buses, however, have reached the tipping point where they are competing on whole-life cost with oil-based fuels, and the pace of development is such that battery EMUs (BEMUs) will undoubtedly play a significant role in UK rail. Working with Sheffield University, Siemens Mobility has been studying the potential of battery trains in the UK for two years, understanding their strengths and weaknesses and the implications for power supplies. BEMU diagrams require sufficient time under the wires (or charging points) to recharge, but, with the electrification of primary route sections (intensively trafficked or high-speed routes), larger areas of secondary non-electrified routes are opened up for BEMU operation.

BEMUs act as a benefit multiplier. Most benefits of electrification scale with the number of diesel trains that can be replaced with faster, cheaper EMUs. On a route like TransPennine, core electrification from Manchester to York enables express electric trains to accelerate faster from speed restrictions and reach their maximum speeds on the steep inclines. But many service groups extend across non-electrified secondary lines, preventing pure EMU operation. While diesel bi-modes allow journey-time savings, bi-modes lose major cost reductions of electrification (cheaper train procurement, train maintenance and track maintenance). Worse still, while secondary and rural routes remain non-electrified, diesel trains continue to constrain capacity and performance where they join congested primary route sections.

BEMUs enable the benefits of the core electrification to be felt over a much wider area. For example, electrification of the core route section Manchester-Selby/York enables BEMU operation of a long list of extension routes as varied as the complete Transpennine Express network (Windermere/Blackpool/Liverpool-Scarborough/Middlesbrough/Hull) to city commuter networks such as the Calderdale line and Harrogate loop, delivering most of the benefits of an electric railway.

In this way, BEMUs can bring shorter journey times, zero-emission at point of use, cheaper train procurement, cheaper train and track maintenance (albeit not as cheap as pure EMUs) to a long list of communities unlikely to see route-wide electrification. The introduction of electric performance on secondary services helps them clear congested route sections more quickly, improving route capacity, while the reduction in diesel traction improves train performance on routes where a PPM boost is sorely needed.

Battery trains are not new, Robert Davison built the first battery train in 1839. Siemens introduced a battery/electric locomotive charging from OLE in 1929 and British Rail operated a BEMU on the Deeside railway from 1958, charged manually after each journey. It is the rapid improvements in cost, energy density and power management (improving control of charge, discharge and therefore lifespan) over the past decade that has made them a disruptive technology.

The future of electrification

Electrification is being delivered today across Europe at a fraction of recent UK costs. Designers there have the freedom to design the whole system to meet the output requirement most efficiently, combining designs proven elsewhere to keep development cost and risk low, with evolutionary, incremental improvements developed between schemes.

Efficient design and installation

An example of this controlled evolution is the Denmark electrification programme. With a ten-year rolling programme and freedom to design, Siemens was able to plan for and deliver highly efficient electrification, avoiding the stop-start workload seen in the UK. Freedom to design allowed proven efficient designs to be combined – for example, Sicat OLE (pictured left) could be used, benefitting from decades of installation experience and continuous improvement, with minimal enforced redesign. This freed effort to focus on those unique features that offered the most benefit. For example, the constrained structure gauge in many locations would have normally required reconstruction. However, Siemens was able to develop a railway-specific surge arrestor that reduced the electrical clearance required and avoided reconstruction of many structures, drawing on proven surge-arrestor technology delivered in other industries.

There are promising signs of individual improvements. For example, it was recently reported that Network Rail plans to combine proven technologies to reduce structure reconstruction cost – using railway surge arrestors (developed by Siemens for Denmark electrification, but previously used in other industries), insulated paint (introduced by Network Rail for the LNE route in 2016, but previously used in other industries), and compact insulated underbridge arms (with origins in British Rail Research in the 1970s/80s).

Modern power supply design

Traction power connections in 25kV railways have, until recently, been made directly to the electricity supply network through simple transformers, resulting in complex harmonic and phase sequence challenges. As traction loads have grown and electricity supply continues to decarbonise, connection at 275kV or 400kV has become necessary, restricting the number of feasible supply locations and constraining all subsequent design. Neutral sections required between supply areas prevent energy-efficient parallel feeding. By contrast, 15kV railways use power converters – initially, maintenance-intensive rotating machines, then by the 1980s semiconductor technology began to replace these and, today, modular multilevel converters use the same components and design principals as modern power conversion in the electricity supply industry, motor drives and renewable generators.

The use of static frequency convertors (SFCs) pictured above has enabled Siemens Mobility to halve the cost of major electrification works compared to the original standard UK design. However, the benefits are not limited to reduction in cost. The elimination of additional OLE conductors and lineside transformers simplifies OLE construction, reducing both the required track access and visual impact. The controllable output voltage improves acceleration and journey time compared to historic supply technology, and, crucially, supply capacity can be added incrementally as required, where it is required.

Perhaps the most exciting advance lies in OLE safety and reliability. The energy released in a typical short-circuit fault (up to 60MJ) can lead to de-wirement and, sadly, each year a number of trespassers suffer electric shock. SFCs limit the maximum fault current, and the combination of simple, fully sectioned protection with Siemens Mobility’s Sitras Plus FastSafe technology enables more reliable detection and faster clearance of the highest consequence short circuits. Disconnecting current up to 40 times faster than historic systems greatly reduces the likelihood of de-wirement and provides a step improvement in safety.

Is it enough?

Bringing costs back towards international norms is a big shift, and it will take more than individual improvements to achieve. The UK railway network is intensively utilised with few diversionary routes, track access is expensive and the pause in electrification during the 2000s means there is limited practical experience in the industry. Yet this intensity of traffic means that the financial case for electrification should be stronger in the UK than anywhere else in Europe, given similar costs. The availability of battery EMUs improves this further.

There are signs of hope in future projects, where alliances with multidisciplinary design have been brought together under common incentives, with some degree of ability to influence the design at the option selection stage.

However, the tendency to impose critical design decisions prior to the start of the design, and the quantity of highly prescriptive standards, continue to constrain the ability to bring costs down to international norms. Too often, the expectation is that proven equipment should be re-engineered to suit UK preferences, diluting the benefit of decades of experience and continuous improvement.

To truly demonstrate efficient delivery, a demonstration project is required that is not subject to these constraints. With a simple output specification, and a single organisation accountable for all safety, cost, and delivery, but otherwise free to undertake whole-system design, electrification is possible in the UK at a fraction of the cost of recent experience.

And, at efficient prices, the business case for increased electrification of UK rail is the strongest it has ever been.

Written by Richard Ollerenshaw, engineering manager (innovation) at Siemens Mobility rail electrification.

Read more: Rail Engineer December 2018: Electrification focus

 

Issue 170 – No diesels and no electrification

Pangbourne, England - July 10, 2016: A class 165 Diesel Multiple Unit is about to depart for London Paddington on the great western mainline. The railway line is currently undergoing a £5bn upgrade with electrification of the entire line from London to South Wales. The newly installed wires are visible in the picture. Once operational, diesel trains like this will be replaced with electric ones.

The new East West railway need not be electrified nor have any diesel trains. So says Chris Grayling who considers that, instead, it will have “a completely new generation of low-emissions trains.”

The then transport minister, Jo Johnson, echoed this view when he challenged the rail industry to get all diesel-only trains off the track by 2040 as he saw “alternative-fuel trains powered entirely by hydrogen” to be a prize on the horizon. Later, the Minister directed the industry task force set up to meet this challenge that further electrification should not be in the scope of its response.

Yet the reality is that hydrogen, the only viable alternative traction with range and performance comparable to diesel, is not suitable for high-powered traction. Due to their conversion losses, hydrogen trains require three times more electrical energy than electric trains. Moreover, with its low energy density, compressed hydrogen requires a fuel tank eight times the size of a diesel tank for the same range.

Because of this, few in the industry share the government’s post-2040 rail traction vision of no diesels and no electrification. For example, Rail Freight Group executive director Maggie Simpson noted that, whilst battery and hydrogen “may show promise for lightweight passenger trains, their application for heavy duty freight is at best unproven”.

Nevertheless, Johnson was right to stress the need to decarbonise the rail industry. Although railways offer great environmental benefits, UK rail cannot rest on its laurels. For example, whilst hybrid cars are increasingly common, there are currently no hybrid trains on the network.

As part of the industry’s response to this decarbonisation challenge, RSSB recently ran a conference to launch competitions offering funding for proposals to develop zero-carbon solutions. However, reflecting the government’s view, this offered no funding for electrification initiatives. Nevertheless, the conference heard how both HS2 and Network Rail are to specify low-carbon traction electricity supplies. With electric trains comprising 72 per cent of the UK passenger fleet, this offers huge carbon savings.

As we report, there were also presentations on the development of battery-hybrid and hydrogen trains. On rural routes that cannot realistically be electrified, hydrogen could offer zero-carbon traction with no harmful local emissions, although it was stressed that this was no silver bullet.

The potential to use redundant multiple units to develop such trains is also described by Malcolm Dobell, who recently had the opportunity to try out the Class 769 Flex unit prior to it entering service early next year. Over 150 new rail vehicles were on show at InnoTrans, which, as Nigel Wordsworth describes, had over 3,000 exhibitors in its 41 halls.

A wide variety of trains, old and new, were seen on the IMechE Railway Division’s technical tour to Italy and Switzerland. As we report, this was a good development opportunity for the large contingent of younger engineers present.

Authorisation of the energisation of the OLE between Didcot and Swindon requires approval from Network Rail’s regional head of engineering and its principal system safety engineer, as well as the leads from assessment and notification bodies. The four women who occupy these senior positions were interviewed by Stewart Thorpe for his feature that considers why women make up only 15 per cent of the railway workforce.

This month we focus on electrification with an article by Richard Ollerenshaw that explains how electrification can be delivered in a cost-effective manner, as is done on the European continent. We also have features on safer DC isolations, research into better 25kV AC railway traction supply arrangements and an initiative to monitor OLE using an in-service passenger train.

OLE is just one aspect of rail infrastructure that is monitored by the New Measurement Train, which, as Chris Parker reports, covers 115,000 miles per year. His feature details the train’s capabilities and the challenges of ensuring it runs on every part of every route.

No trains ran on the 60-mile rural route between Stranraer and Ayr for two months recently. As we report, this was due to an adjacent dangerous building that continues to cause short-formed commuter services. No doubt, the ScotRail Alliance is doing all it can to restore a normal train service, yet the building is under the control of the local Council. Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt from this episode to avoid any such future lengthy service disruption.

Over the past 35 years, the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway has laid and re-opened 14 miles of track and five stations. It also had to build four signal boxes and re-equip another. In a feature that describes how the line was signalled as it progressively re-opened, Clive Kessell shows how this demanded creative thinking and bargain basement procurement.

Our other signalling feature is a sobering piece by Paul Darlington that is essential reading for anyone involved in signalling projects. This concerns the RAIB report into last year’s derailment at Waterloo. The mistakes that led to this incident, together with similar failings during the Cardiff re-signalling project, could, in different circumstances, have had awful consequences and show the need to relearn lessons from the 1988 Clapham tragedy.

Read more: New platforms at London Waterloo

 

Rail Engineer December 2018: Electrification focus

Click here to create a free subscription to one of our publications.

Euston station at 50

Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.
Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.

Transport transforms – socially, economically, topographically. It also evolves, reflecting our changing needs. Crossrail – though mostly underground – has made its mark on the capital’s landscape with ten unique stations, each conceived by different architects. And soon HS2 will act as a catalyst for regeneration around Euston as the station embarks on its third life.

London’s first railway terminus has been at the heart of our transport system since passengers walked through the doors on 20 July 1837. But it’s the station’s second incarnation we’ll focus on here, marking the 50th anniversary of the Queen officially opening it on 14 October 1968. Costing £15 million, ‘New Euston’ was designed to cater for 20 million passengers annually; in 2016/17, 44 million used it. Few would have predicted such demand at a time when rail was in decline.

Back in the 1980s, Tony Freschini led the team credited with saving Ribblehead Viaduct on the majestic Settle-Carlisle line. His railway career had taken him to Euston in 1966, serving as the project’s resident engineer from 1968-1970. Whilst there, he undertook an extramural course in Transport Studies at the University of London, which, in 1971, culminated in the preparation of a thesis entitled Euston Station: its function and method of operation.

What follows is a very condensed version of that paper, examining principal areas of the station. As you’ll observe, it sometimes reflects a very different time.

Resident engineer Tony Freschini – then and now.

The parcels depot

Heavy parcels traffic has been a feature of Euston from its earliest days. The latest figures show that, during each four-weekly period in 1969/1970, an average of 2,160,000 packages were handled, although the depot has sufficient flexibility to handle almost double this number.

Outbound, all BR ordinary parcels and Red Star traffic is handled within the depot, together with South-North transfers and a considerable proportion of the periodical traffic. Newspapers are handled directly from the platforms. Post Office (PO) parcels post is delivered to, and handled within, the depot before being transhipped to the trains.

Virtually all of the inbound traffic passes through the depot, apart from the PO parcels post and letter mail which is taken through the main building basement area for direct transhipment by road to external PO sorting depots. Complete PO parcels trains are unloaded on the long bay – Platform 18 – permitting road vehicles to access both sides.

Red Star traffic normally consists of small consignments brought to the depot by the consignor for forwarding on a nominated train. This has proved a very successful service, with the number of parcels forwarded from Euston having risen from 2,886 parcels in 1967 – the first week of the service – to about 8,500 per week average last year.

Construction of the station's west wing and underground car park. Photo: Tony Freschini.
Construction of the station’s west wing and underground car park. Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.

Organisation and routing

The parcels depot is situated on a concrete deck about nine acres in area and constructed some 30 feet above the platform and track areas. Its southern side is approximately 350 feet north of the main station buildings and spans the 15 passenger platforms, the parcels platforms and two sidings roads. The depot itself consists of a central raised area – roughly rectangular in shape – with a wide roadway traversing the perimeter and a loading/unloading dock for handling the various traffics.

There are two main ramps from the depot to platform level which are designed to facilitate the bulk transfer of parcels using wheeled trolleys – known as BRUTEs (British Rail Utilitarian Trolley Equipment) – coupled together to form trains hauled by tractor units.

The principal ramp serves Platforms 18-20, but access is also possible to the basement area of the main building, from which all of the platforms can be reached. The second ramp gives direct access to Platforms 1-3, which can also be reached directly by road vehicles from Eversholt Street. Lifts are provided to serve individual pairs of platforms, suitable for carrying staff or a single trolley.

During the day, Platforms 1-3 are generally dedicated for passenger use; however at night considerable parcels traffic movements take place with Platform 1 being used extensively for outbound newspaper trains and inbound periodical traffic. PO parcels trains use Platforms 2/3.

Outgoing parcels are delivered to the northeast side of the depot, where they are offloaded manually, placed directly onto a ground-based conveyor system for transportation to the sorting area, then loaded onto the BRUTEs for despatch. Incoming parcels are taken to the south side of the depot for sorting before going by road to their destinations.

A model of New Euston. Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.
A model of New Euston. Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.

Passenger traffic and facilities

New Euston’s main building spans the area between Eversholt Street and Cardington Street – a distance of about 600 feet. The nature of the station site allowed the planners to adopt a functional layout and the building is divided into the East wing, concourse, West wing, basement service area and underground car park.

To avoid the severe congestion between passenger and parcels traffics from which the old station suffered, the designers were commissioned to provide a layout that, as far as possible, enabled the two traffics to be segregated. To accomplish this, they raised the main passenger concourse 10 feet above the platforms; its chosen level being determined by the roof level of the London Transport (LT) Underground station and the need to provide sufficient headroom within the basement area.

Passengers arriving on foot approach the station from Eversholt Street and Melton Street respectively and enter via the eastern or western colonnades. Access from the south is across the paved forecourt area situated above the car park. From the Underground, the concourse is reached by means of a large escalator situated centrally on the southern side.

The station is able to handle 50,000-60,000 passengers per day, of which some 20,000-22,000 arrivals and departures are by main line and semi-fast services, and about 8,500 by commuter services. Both traffics have increased by around 50 per cent since electrification.

On the north face of the concourse, a large electro-mechanical train indicator gives full details of train arrivals and departures.

Access to the platforms is gained directly from the north side of this area, the section between the concourse and the passenger ramps being termed the Passenger Dispersal area. This forms a corridor about 30 feet wide, running East-West through the main buildings.

Road vehicle access to the basement from Eversholt Street. Tony Freschini Collection.

Platform layout

Prior to the reconstruction, the track layout often impaired the station’s operational flexibility due to the lack of platform space and suitable points and crossings. It was decided therefore to increase the number of platforms from 12 to 15 and remodel the permanent way for a distance of about one mile north of the platforms. Combined with the new signalling scheme, this has allowed the operators to path trains into the station more easily.

  • Platforms 1, 2 and 3 cater generally for main line arrivals, with passengers entering the concourse via the narrow ramp from Platform 3.
  • Platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7 cater for main line and semi-fast services, access to the concourse being via a wide ramp.
  • Platforms 8, 9, 10 and 11 cater mainly for the outer suburban services, with tracks 9 and 10 also being fitted with DC rails for use by the local Watford service.
  • Platforms 12-15 serve main line and semi fast services, with access provided by a ramp towards the northwest side of the concourse (Platforms 13-15 also cater for sleeping car services).
  • Tracks 16 and 17 are normally used as stabling sidings.
  • Platforms 18, 19 and 20 are used for parcel train services.

East and West wings

The East wing building is a three-story block containing the main catering facilities which presently consist of a restaurant, bar and small cafeteria/waiting room, with a self-service tea bar in the eastern dispersal area. At first floor level is a more exclusive restaurant and small bar, as well as the Superloo area comprising superior toilet accommodation with baths and showers.

Currently, 220 catering staff are employed in the building and, on an average day, some 1,500 meals are served at concourse level and 400 at first floor level. A further 40 work in the basement, preparing food for the train restaurant services.

The West wing houses the general station facilities, the principal feature being the Travel Centre. This is a new concept, the main purpose of which is to offer passengers tickets, reservations and enquiries within one centrally located office. During an average week, 45,000 tickets are issued to main line destinations. All the ticket machines are mechanised using the Westinghouse multi-printer model.

The basement

The basement service roadway runs the full length of the main buildings and is a minimum of 24 feet in width, although headroom restricts use to vehicles up to 13 feet 6 inches in height. A loading dock – which forms the roof of the LT Underground ticket office – is raised three feet above the roadway with 22 vehicle bays, two for newspapers and 20 for PO traffic.

All traffic movement outside the service roadway is by BRUTE trolley train and a dedicated route traverses the perimeter of the main building, passing beneath the service roadway, allowing all platforms to be served without interfering with road traffic.

The car park

The station car park is beneath the forecourt at the southern side of the main building and is accessed via a ramp from Melton Street. Parking is controlled by National Car Parks on concession from BR.

The old station had no provision for private parking and the designers were faced with the problem of how many cars to accommodate. A figure of 240 was initially agreed upon, with a view to expanding this in future if justified on economic grounds.

Parking charges provide a short waiting period of two hours for 2/- per hour, rising steeply to 30/- for the whole day. A concession is made for passengers, amounting to a 50 per cent reduction. The parking area was opened in December 1968 and initially was not fully utilised; however, it has since gained steadily in popularity and is now frequently full.

Signal box

The new power signal box is located to the north of Platform 20 and plays an important part in the operational efficiency of the new terminal. It was built in conjunction with the station reconstruction scheme and was completed in 1965 at a cost of about £2 million. The box controls 2.5 miles of line from Euston-South Hampstead, a distance of 18 single-track miles comprising 488 signal routes.

Two signalmen are employed on each shift and use a push-button system located in a 25 feet long signalling console. the area controller supervises the operation, assisted by a train recorder, and each is provided with a telephone keyboard to enable them to contact all signal boxes, stations and depots, as well as train control.

Preparatory works for the concourse roof's insitu concrete support beams. Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.
Preparatory works for the concourse roof’s insitu concrete support beams. Photo: Tony Freschini Collection.

An appraisal of the facilities

In general, I consider that the new station functions well, allowing the various traffics to be handled efficiently. However certain parts could have been better designed and several working practices should be improved.

Having examined the handling of the parcels traffics, the main fault I observed arises from the provision of insufficient direct supervision of the operatives. The effect of this often gives rise to careless or occasionally very rough handling of the traffic. On many occasions, I observed parcels lying in the roadways having fallen from overloaded trolleys. Steps should be taken to ensure that the BRUTE drivers observe the specified 5mph speed limit and that the trains are limited to the recommended 12 trolleys.

In respect of passenger handling, it is my view that despite the great improvements made following the reconstruction work, Euston still requires additional works to enable it to fulfil its function as a major interchange terminal to assist the flow of passengers between the various transport modes. However I consider the interchange facilities between rail and Underground services to be excellent and it is unlikely these could be improved.

The considerable east-west flow of passengers through the dispersal area to the toilets, left luggage lockers and the catering premises conflicts with the flows using the ramp to Platforms 1-3. The fact that the ramp is only about a sixth of the width of the others adds to the congestion.

A further problem arises from the lack of seating on the concourse, although belatedly some has been provided – totalling about 90 – with a further 24 being placed near the central columns. The main objection to providing more seating arises from the probability that they would be used by undesirables.

The postal facilities are poor, although a central postal suite has been provided within the concourse with two letterboxes and stamp machines. Telephone facilities are plentiful and well located.

A labour force of around 1,900 persons (including 142 train drivers, 42 guards and 53 conductor guards) is employed to run the normal activities of the terminal, with a three-shift system to cover the full working day. The direction and control of the labour force is undertaken by a team of four managers. It should be noted that the salary of the station manager does not exceed £3,000 pa, and those of the principal assistants are less than £2,500.

Future developments

The numbers of passengers using the Outer Suburban services are sure to expand quickly as the towns between Watford and Northampton grow and the expansion of Northampton takes place, together with construction of the new city of Milton Keynes. Long-distance traffic is also expected to expand with the electrification of the line between Weaver Junction and Glasgow.

As a consequence, I believe that a further extension of many of the station facilities will be required during the next decade, although current platform capacity seems adequate to cope with foreseeable traffic growth.

Following completion of the reconstruction, BR has decided to retain the interdepartmental committee originally set up to plan and coordinate the development of the new station. At present, it is considering the pressing need to develop the two vacant sites south of the main building – currently utilised as temporary car parks – into an office block and hotel.

It is desirable that future commercial development should seek to compliment this, retaining the broad area at concourse level for the outward expansion of the passenger facilities if and when these are required.

Tony’s final two paragraphs allude to Euston’s greatest failing, one that has thankfully been recognised and rectified in subsequent station redevelopments: the need to fully exploit a site’s commercial potential to ensure maximum return on the investment.

On its official opening day, Michael Baily, The Times’ transport correspondent, remarked: “As a piece of urban planning, [New Euston] stands as a monument to ignorance and bureaucratic bungling.”

The problem stemmed from central and local government’s thwarting of British Railways’ plan to include shops and offices which would have soon paid for the station. Instead a financial blow was imparted costing BR – and the taxpayer – an estimated £4 million every year. And this squandered opportunity brought a social loss, too, as thousands of commuters were compelled to embark on secondary journeys to their places of work.

Baily went on: “With growing understanding and skills in transport/land planning in bodies such as the Greater London Council, one would hope eventually at Euston, not for just a crude office-block-on-station such as British Railways originally proposed, but for a properly engineered transport centre with travelators, minibuses and the like running through, and a development complex incorporating the massive office, hotel, shopping and leisure facilities such a key site in the urban fabric justifies.”

Let’s hope we get it right next time. Enter HS2.

Read more: New platforms at London Waterloo

 

Liverpool Lime Street completion

In September 2016 (issue 143), Rail Engineer reported on the development and the proposed designs for the extensive remodelling and resignalling of Liverpool Lime Street station. At the time, the project had not obtained all the required funding and was still subject to gaining all the necessary approvals and consents. Rail Engineer is now pleased to report that all the planned work has indeed taken place, and that the challenges have all been overcome to deliver a successful project.

Collaboration with all stakeholders, including several train operators, the City of Liverpool and other organisations in the North West, was key to negotiating and securing the required disruptive access. It stimulated the production of a comprehensive and detailed transport strategy, with which the project staging strategy aligned. It also identified works required to manage passenger flow during key blockades.

The strategy called for Liverpool to be ‘kept open for business’ during stages 2 and 5 of the project, with trains terminating at Liverpool South Parkway. It was also the catalyst for a bi-directional signalling solution in order to retain some services into Lime Street while the significant reconstruction work continued.

Modelling

The need for the project was poor asset condition and the growing region – by 2043, the number of morning peak commuters is expected to double to more than 40,000 each day. Liverpool Lime Street is also a key part of the Northern Hub programme, which is a regulatory milestone for Network Rail.

The scheme has delivered a capacity increase of three extra services per hour by creating two new platforms while extending Platform 10 to accommodate eleven-car units and Platforms 1 and 2 for eight car units (previously four car). At the same time, Platforms 3 to 6 have been realigned to increase turnout speed and to provide safer, wider access for passengers.

All of the signalling has been renewed, with signalling control moved to the Manchester Rail Operating Centre (MROC). This equates to a 100 signalling equivalent unit (SEU) renewal, which is a sizeable scheme. Four kilometres of plain line track and 24 point ends have been renewed, along with the associated overhead line equipment.

Building Information Management (BIM), video simulation, and 4D modelling have all been used extensively as part of the planning and implementation process, which included ‘virtual route learning’ for Stage 5 to highlight safety risks to workers during the construction and for stakeholder management. BIM modelling was invaluable in interdisciplinary design reviews, identifying potential clashes on site and obtaining accurate measurements within the constricted Lime Street cutting to inform equipment siting and elevated cable route position.

The model was used extensively for signal sighting and identified the requirement for several sighting screens. This enabled the exact dimensions of the screens to be modelled for formal design and build, well in advance of the signals being installed and commissioned.

Hub and spoke

The project was delivered using a hub and spoke arrangement, in which organisations build a successful procurement strategy by integrating all the elements that are responsible for the delivery. The central hub facilitates communications and collaboration between the various spokes and manages the overall delivery strategy, providing sufficient process and assurance to enable effective working between spokes.

In this case, the ‘hub’ was led by Network Rail IP Signalling, which was responsible for signalling, operational telecoms, electrification and plant (E&P) and SCADA works, supported by Network Rail IP Northern Programmes (civil engineering and station works).

Buckingham Group Contracting planned and delivered all worksite management for the delivery of the project, including the eight blockades to deliver each key stage. This included all the civil engineering, platform works, plus station electrical, CCTV and customer information systems. Buckingham was supported by Motion Rail, which supplied the station information and security systems, while PICOW Engineering Group undertook the mechanical and electrical works.

A separate principal contractor organisation (also via Buckingham) coordinated the safe interface of all site works as well as delivering and managing the project site establishment and welfare facilities. S&C North Alliance delivered track and overhead line work, with design by Amey Consulting. Siemens Rail Automation delivered all of the signalling control, E&P, SCADA and operational telecommunications.

Acting as subcontractors to Buckingham, SNC-Lavalin’s Atkins business delivered the detailed design for the track, the majority of the civil engineering inclusive of all platform re-modelling and all station electrical and telecoms works. Atkins also addressed the track and platform interfaces, together with providing the formal BIM coordination role, while Arcadis provided a specialist role in the design of the civils and geotechnical interface for the OLE brackets required to support the new structures within the cutting and tunnels.

SPI, the creators of the virtual reality model, provided resources for 4D-modelling, model Integration within the hub team and produced the driver training video. Within Network Rail, the Signalling Design Group and Works Delivery organisations also delivered packages of work for the project, together with Babcock.

South shed. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.
South shed. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.

Starting position

The platform layout was, and is, somewhat confusing so it is worth taking a moment to clarify it.

Looking from the city centre entrance into the station, prior to the re-modelling, platforms were numbered from left to right and from 1 to 9. Platforms 1 to 6 were used predominantly for local services with Platforms 7 to 9 for longer distance services and longer trains.

The wide bay that contained Platforms 1 and 2 had an additional stabling siding – ‘A’ – running in between the two platform-facing tracks. Similarly, the bay for Platforms 3 and 4 included siding ‘B’.

There were originally two sidings between Platforms 5 and 6 – ‘C’ and ‘D’ – but siding C was removed in 1948. Platform 6 had quite a kink in it, which causes problems with signal sightings.

In the South Shed, what would logically be Platform 7 was, in fact, just siding ‘E’ – the support columns for the station roof, close to the platform edge, precluded it from being used for passengers. So Platform 7 was where one would expect to find Platform 8.

There was a wide space between Platform 7 and the last bay for Platforms 8 and 9. Formerly, this space was used for an access road, with a short bay platform at the top end protruding through a small bridge. This had also been removed, as had the bay on the far right that used to be Platforms 10 and 11. Since then, the space between platform faces 7 and 8 was used for waiting rooms and a redundant Post Office building.

Major changes

Platform 1 has been taken out of use, which has allowed the remaining platforms to be lengthened to allow for a minimum of six-car trains. The original Platform 6 has been straightened to improve signal sighting and reclassified as Platform 5.

The project removed waiting rooms, left luggage facilities and the redundant post office mail handling building between the existing Platforms 7 and 8 to create two new platform faces. The post office building removal itself was a major exercise due to redundant machinery and asbestos. Demolished by Buckingham’s own internal demolition team, the process required extensive excavation through sandstone rock together with infill of the former post office shaft tower and service tunnel. Some of the spoil was used to fill the voids, the remaining was removed from site by a combination of road and rail transport.

At the same time, the former Virgin Trains ticket office and waiting lounge buildings were carefully dismantled and placed in storage for future re-use.

The high level of ballast contamination in the Liverpool Lime Street station area, with asbestos and train discharge prominent in its make up, required safe removal and transportation to a waste facility. This was achieved successfully with no issues.

The new layout has provided five platforms on each side of the station, known as ‘North Shed’ and ‘South Shed’. Platform 10 (previously 9) has been extended from 246 to 267 metres. This is both to increase the number of platforms available for 11-car services from two to three and to increase the flexibility of train operations. Platforms 8, 9 and 10 have been resurfaced to match the newer paving in the North Shed, and all the platform coping edges have been changed to match the new track alignment.

The layout now allows trains using the slow lines to be predominantly routed to and from Platforms 1 to 5, while platforms 6 to 10 will serve the Fast lines. Departure speeds have been increased from 15 to 25 mph and the switches and crossings are now spaced further away from one another to enable independent tamping. The home signals are closer to the platforms ends and most platform-to-platform moves can be done under a main route, rather than as a shunt move.

New Mk3D fixed tension overhead line equipment (OLE) and new motorised operating switches have been provided to support the new track layout, but the proposal for motorised earthing switches for the OLE was removed from the scope of the scheme, as it was concluded the product was not sufficiently developed in time.

New signals and extended platforms.
New signals and extended platforms. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.

Signalling changes

The previous London, Midland & Scottish Railway Type 13 signalbox contained a 95-lever Westinghouse Brake & Signal Co Ltd Style ‘L’ miniature leaver frame, commissioned on 25 January 1948. It is being carefully removed and will be used to support the one remaining Style ‘L’ frame still operated by Network Rail, at Maidstone East. The signal box itself, located within the station throat and standing in a deep cutting, will be retained and may be reused for office space and storage.

New signalling equipment includes Frauscher wheel sensors, standard strength AWS (Automatic Warning System) magnets (permanent, electro and suppressed), TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) transmitters, LED signals and indicators, miniature banners, and ‘right away’ and ‘train ready to start’ switches. All the points operating equipment is in-bearer Clamp Locks (IBCL) with condition monitoring.

The signalling is connected via the telecommunication FTNx Internet-protocol (IP) transmission network to a single workstation in the MROC. Traditionally, remote signalling was controlled via a telecom point to point link with a diverse routed back up link, possibly via another telecoms service provider, to provide continuity of service in the event of a failure. With an IP packet-based telecom network, however, the data messages are broken into individual packets of information and routed around a mesh network of routers and links. In the event of cable or equipment failure, multiple paths are available for the packets. Once all the packets are received, the data message is reassembled with any missing or corrupt packets resent. This all takes place in a few milliseconds.

‘Lime Street Control’ is a signalling control method in operation at a number of terminal stations. It uses the configuration of the train detection system to check that a platform has sufficient length before allowing the protecting signal to clear. As the name suggests, it was first provided at Liverpool, as part of the resignalling of the station in 1948.

During detailed design, a decision was made for Liverpool Lime Street to be controlled from a single dedicated workstation. An assessment of signaller workload confirmed that Automatic Route Setting (ARS) was not required. This meant that the Lime Street Control could not be provided as part of the ARS and, therefore, Lime Street Control has been provided in a conventional manner within the interlocking.

With LED signals, the access requirements for maintenance are significantly reduced and, due to the limited clearances in the Lime Street cutting, ladders and walkways to the new signal gantries have not been installed. Instead, a tower work-platform scaffold from LOBO Systems has been provided, which can quickly be installed should access be required.

To further improve safe maintenance access into the cutting, a new access point has been created at Crown Street, midpoint between Lime Street and Edge Hill. However, the planned trackside lockout device systems have not been provided, following a justification accepted by the Network Rail Safety Review Panel and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). Lockout devices have been provided for all the platforms.

One innovation introduced by the project were combined alphanumeric route indicators (CARI) from Variable Message Signs (VMS), a Hill and Smith business. These can be used as a replacement for both standard alphanumeric route indicators (SARI), which have to have a readability of up to 250 metres, and miniature alphanumeric route indicators (MARI), which have a reduced readable distance of 65 metres. The new CARI indicators have been installed as ‘first of type’ at signals LL3067, LL5071 and LL9073 under a product acceptance trial certificate.

The re-control of the adjacent Edge Hill signal box to the Manchester ROC is now planned for 2019 and will be re-controlled onto the existing Liverpool (Huyton) workstation, leaving Lime Street with its own dedicated workstation.

Lime Street cutting. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.
Lime Street cutting. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.

Equipment locations

The project team was tasked with finding space with safe, easy and maintainable access for equipment to be located on the surface. Six multi-discipline equipment compounds were identified – five of these were on redundant bridges and areas of land above the cutting and were available for leaseback or purchase. The former bridge owners and tenants were, in general, pleased to help, so the inspection and maintenance of the structures, and the associated risk that may affect the operational railway, is now wholly in the control of the infrastructure manager. A sixth, multi-disciplinary equipment compound is situated on Liverpool Lime Street Platform 5.

Emergency spare cable ducts have been provided from the top of the cutting to track level. These are fitted with a draw rope to allow a failed cable to be replaced quickly and safely without the need for an isolation and disruptive track access for a work platform.

At St Andrews Street, an equipment compound has been located behind a new St Andrews ‘The Bullring’ mural, as part of a curved security wall around the compound. The original mural was unveiled by HRH Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip in July 1989 and commemorates the life and times of people who lived in nearby St Andrews Gardens, which opened in 1935 under a city housing programme.

In the same area, the project also undertook voluntary works within the local Bronte Youth Centre, investing almost £40,000 in improving the facilities there for local people.

The equipment within the compound itself consists of the signal relocatable equipment building (REB), 650V signalling power supply, point-heating control, telecoms transmission, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) and junction lighting controls equipment.

Rubble on tracks.
Rubble on tracks.

Project stages

A comprehensive staging strategy gave stakeholders confidence in the successful delivery of the project and allowed the possession access requirements to be demonstrated, justified and agreed.

The new crossover ladder at Crown Street was installed early in the project but not commissioned until later. Likewise, switches and crossing units were installed at the entrance to the station to enable platform phasing in/out during the lead up to final commissioning. Bringing the points into service in stages allowed the significant platform alteration works to be carried out in a phased manner, which kept the overall blockade and station closure requirements to a minimum.

In October 2017, the bi-directional signalling system was installed and commissioned, which enabled trains to run in and out of Platforms 1 and 2 for much of the programme. For a number of smaller closures of Lime Street, and during the main blockades, long-distance trains terminated at Liverpool South Parkway with Merseyrail running additional services on the Northern Line to assist customers travelling to and from Liverpool.

OLE work in the cutting. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.
OLE work in the cutting. Photo: Matthew Nichol Photography.

Wall collapse

On Tuesday 28 February 2018, a section of the wall above the cutting collapsed, sending 200 tonnes of debris across four lines in the deep cutting approaching Lime Street station. The cause was not associated with the Lime Street project – the ground above the cutting had been overloaded, pushing the wall out and onto the railway – and fortunately no one was hurt. Other Network Rail teams worked 24/7 to clear a total of 4,000 tonnes of debris and to repair damage to the track, signalling and overhead wires. The line reopened on 8 March.

The incident did not affect the project and, in fact, the opportunity was taken to deliver some work that had been planned to take place later in the year. This included demolishment of many old buildings near the station and installing several undertrack crossings from one side of the station to the other.

The second major phase of the station’s transformation was an eight-week (2 June – 29 July 2018) blockade. This was known as stage 5, during which all station platforms were remodelled, lengthened and widened to create additional space for longer trains and more passengers. The bi-directional signalling for trains running in and out of Platforms 1 and 2 was recommissioned and used for almost five weeks of the blockade. Full train services resumed at Liverpool Lime Street on Monday 30 July.

The existing Platform 1 was abandoned; enabling the existing Platforms 2 and 3 to be extended. The existing sidings within the platforms were recovered to enable wider platforms to be achieved. A new Siemens Westlock interlocking was commissioned at MROC to control the Liverpool Lime Street area, with the control of signals and points via an IP-linked Westlock Trackside System (WTS).

During stage 5a, from 01:00 Saturday 2 June until 06:00 on Monday 11 June, Babcock, working for Siemens, installed temporary bidirectional signalling that would remain in service until the end of Stage 5b. Recovery of all trackside equipment was undertaken to facilitate track renewals. Siemens also worked within the Manchester ROC to relocate the Huyton workstation in order to facilitate the installation of the new Lime Street workstation.

Stage 5b (06:00 Monday 11 June – 20:00 Friday 13 July) delivered the reconnection of the signalling following the track works. Siemens undertook significant installation and local testing of all the new signalling equipment during this time.

Stage 5c 20:00 Friday 13 July – 04:45 Monday 30 July was the fringe changeover stage with principles and wheels-free testing as all track works were now complete. Siemens carried out changeovers within Edge Hill relay room, including a power re-feed from a new supply point. Additional works to the Edge Hill signalling panel were also undertaken so as to reflect the Lime Street changes and fringe to the Manchester ROC.

In total, stage 5 delivered:

  • The new workstation at the ROC;
  • One Westlock Interlocking;
  • One power supply point
  • Three combined alphanumeric route indicator signals (on);
  • Six REBs containing new-technology Westlock Trackside System (WTS);
  • 16 AWS magnets;
  • 24 point ends;
  • 38 TPWS transmitters;
  • 84 Frauscher axle-counter heads;
  • 85 new/altered signals (including 14 lightweight signals, eight on gantry, 10 off right away, nine miniature banner, nine ground position light signals);
  • More than 120 signalling available routes;
  • Over 135km of miscellaneous cable.

Some additional, final works took place on Sunday 2 September and Sunday 14 October with the new Platforms 1 and 2 in full passenger use. This now allows for the extra three services per hour in and out of Lime Street station, including new direct services to Scotland.

The rail industry sometimes has a poor reputation for delivering major projects, but the Lime Street remodelling was a complicated and significant project with many interfaces and risks. It has, however, been successfully delivered and has provided the opportunity to provide a much better layout to suit todays railway, and one that is maintainable, sustainable and is able to support the Northern Power House.

Thanks to Ian Fury and Claire Hulstone of Network Rail, Fergal Kiernan of Buckingham Group Contracting and James Davies of Siemens for their help with this article.

New platforms at London Waterloo

The final phase of the major investment by Network Rail to increase capacity on the routes in and out of London Waterloo station is nearing completion with the refurbishment and modification of the former Waterloo International Terminal (WIT), originally used by Eurostar trains but closed since November 2007 when the service was transferred to St. Pancras International. The work is being project managed by the Wessex Capacity Alliance, a partnership of Network Rail, Skanska, AECOM, Colas Rail and Mott MacDonald.

During August 2017, Platforms 20 to 24 were put to temporary use for domestic services, but without the full functionality now being provided, to allow closure of Platforms 1 to 10 for the lengthening and reconstruction of Platforms 1 to 4 (issue 156, October 2017). After that temporary closure, Platform 20 remained in use for Windsor line services, but Platforms 21 to 24 were closed again to allow for the major works now nearing completion.

Work is taking place below, on and above these platforms with a complex mix of activities. The most apparent of these activities is the provision of a major new structure – the ‘infill’ roofing between the original station roof and the WIT roof. But, apart from this, there is modernisation of the platforms, repairs to the WIT roof, installation of lifts, escalators, stairways, ramps, emergency exits and gatelines, refurbishment of the ‘orchestra pit’, completion of the permanent features of the new link bridge and fitting of all mechanical and electrical services. That’s quite a list!

Infill roofing

The design and finish of the ‘infill’ roofing has obviously been a major architectural challenge. The original station roof is a fairly conventional arrangement of main long-span trusses supporting smaller apex bays carrying the glazing. The WIT roof is an iconic structure in the form of three-pinned arches arranged at right angles to the track/platforms.

The gap between the two roof structures arose as a result of the desire to develop and utilise the ‘orchestra pit’, of which more later.

The gap to be infilled is approximately 15 metres wide by 60 metres in extent. The accepted design is a series of inverted triangular steel trusses, supported on two tall and tapering steel columns and also partially on the top member of the ‘gable-end’ truss roof structure. This arrangement is intended to hopefully blend the two roofs, but will, in reality, only be seen by those observers keen to look skywards with craned necks.

Externally viewed, however, planning stipulations by Lambeth Council required the infill to be in the form of a rectangular box, being the outer and upper shell of glazing. This is what local residents in adjacent high-rise blocks of flats will see.

The ‘foundations’ for the new roofing supports required extending the steelwork down well below concourse level. The roof is supported by the original station masonry arch structures to the east (Platform 19), by the WIT structure in the centre, and on new foundations over the Waterloo & City lines to the west (Platform 24). The reuse of the existing structures around the London Underground control room had to be suitably tested and reinforced to withstand these new loads.

The roof infill was designed by the Wessex Capacity Alliance. The placing and fixing of the steelwork, which was fabricated by Bourne Steel, is being facilitated by a significant temporary steel structure, a kind of falsework (painted yellow for distinction – see photographs) and the ingenious use of a range of long reach mobile platforms for access to locate and bolt and/or weld connections. Leading specialist building envelope contractor Prater is carrying out the glazing.

Passenger facilities and circulation

The ‘orchestra pit’ referred to earlier is a development of the sunken area below the main concourse level, which was originally used as the Eurostar passenger waiting area. At the rear was the booking office and Eurostar offices/stores. At the front were the check-in, security and passport controls. This whole sunken area has been enlarged by modification of the floor slab (more accurately, the platform support structure) to create a larger passenger circulation space – the Coleman Group carried out all the general demolition work, RGL Services the specialist hydrodemolition and the Kelly Group did all the new concrete works.

The creation of the ‘orchestra pit’ is key to the provision of great flexibility for passenger transfer and circulation. For passengers wishing to gain access to the new platforms, either from any other platform or from concourse level, there is a new broad link bridge (constructed by Kilnbridge) taking them straight to the new Platform 20/24 concourse with its gateline, train information boards and other services.

For those transferring to/from London Underground, there is a broad, new flight of steps from concourse level to the orchestra pit level and then three new escalators leading to the London Underground subway level. And for those transferring directly between national rail services on Platforms 21/24, there are escalators between platform and orchestra pit levels.

There are also lifts between these levels, making use of old WIT lift shafts but with new equipment installed by Stannah Lifts, which is also providing two completely new lifts between the orchestra pit and LU subway levels.

At the foot of the island platform escalators, gatelines enable access/egress directly to orchestra pit level and thence on through to LU subway level. All of this new equipment and structural alterations, including the very imaginative development of the orchestra pit, will enable smooth and flexible passenger circulation while minimising any further congestion to the original main station concourse.

To facilitate direct access between Platforms 19 and Platform 20, a two-section ramp and a stairway have been provided. This is effectively a new island platform, but with one half at the original old station level and the other at WIT level. This is the only location where the new interface has had to be addressed in this way.

Platform alterations

Some modifications to Platforms 20 to 24 have been necessary in putting them to their new use.

These platforms have been shortened by 50 metres at their country ends so as to accommodate a new switch and crossing layout, installation of which also necessitated major structural modifications of the viaduct beneath. This new layout gives the flexibility to operate a service of 20 trains per hour, compared to the five or six trains per hour in the time of Eurostar operation.

Add to this increase in trains per hour the fact that a fully occupied commuter train will have around 1,500-1,600 passengers aboard, wheras a Eurostar train has a capacity of 750 passengers, and it can readily be appreciated what a step change in capacity the WIT work is providing

As well as being shortened at the country end, the London ends of Platforms 20 to 23 have also been shortened by 50 metres to create the passenger concourse area. Even with these length reductions, all the new platforms can take 12-car trains.

In the location vacated by the shortening of Platforms 20 to 23, a spacious 50-metre-long new concourse has been formed using a voided concrete slab with polystyrene infill.

Each new island platform (21/22 and 23/24) has new escalator wells and stairwells. All of these have required significant structural modification and reconstruction of the original platform slabs. Conversely, some platform openings from WIT days that are not now required have had to be structurally infilled. The works to modify various concrete structures are being carried out by Kelly Formwork (UK).

Although the platform edges originally had tactile strips, these were not of the standard now required to warn visually impaired passengers of the edge risk. Previously, passengers would only have had access to the platforms whilst a stationary Eurostar was already platformed. Now, they will be exposed to the greater hazard of moving trains. Therefore, all the coping slabs have been replaced with an integral tactile strip to the correct standard. Despite the platform shortenings, this work has still amounted to the placement of 1.5km. of new copings.

Other works

Rail Engineer was escorted on a route through the impressive catacombs, a network of major brick arches, beneath Waterloo station to view the works. Old WIT mechanical and electrical services are being stripped out and being replaced by new cabling and ducting for communications infrastructure, fire systems, public address, lighting and ventilation.

There are extensive plans for releasing large areas under the new platforms for retail uses by private developers. It is understood that this will commence soon after the current project to open the new platforms is completed.

Tiling of all walkway and concourse areas is ongoing and the finishes and parapets for the link bridge are being worked on.

The new platforms are scheduled to open for passenger use on 9 December. This will provide immediate benefit to the operation of the station with the existing services. No doubt, when a new timetable comes into force next May, the full flexibility and capacity improvement gained from the new platforms will become even more apparent. The Southwestern train planners will have a major new asset, enabling them to diversify and improve the train service pattern optimally.

Prior to these capacity improvement works, Waterloo station was handling approximately 96 million passengers a year. After commissioning of the WIT platforms in their new role, which will be the final element of the overall project, that capacity will have been increased to 120 million passengers.

To achieve this, the cost of the change in use of the WIT platforms to their new future role is estimated at £170 million. That sounds like very good value.

Read more: An update on the West Midlands Metro

 

Autonomous trams demonstrated in public

Taxi firm Addison Lee announced in mid October that it would be introducing driverless autonomous cars in London by 2021 (its über-competitor Uber has previously announced similar plans). That’s all very interesting, but, apart from delivering passengers to stations and then collecting them again, what has it got to do with rail?

Autonomous driving for road vehicles, when it happens – experts differ as to whether it is as imminent as Addison Lee think or a decade or more away – will have a big impact on the relative economics of existing urban rail services, especially light rail (trams).

Historically, light rail has been seen as ‘greener’ and more effective that its main on-street competitor – the bus. Light rail is, after all, (normally) electric powered and so doesn’t have emissions problems from internal combustion engines. In addition, by running on track, whether dedicated or shared with road vehicles, light rail is seen as both safer and more productive, offering higher capacity for its footprint of road space than any bus.

However, things are changing. Sales of electric buses increase month-on-month in cities around the world and autonomous self-driving buses exist – they are mostly small shuttle vehicles at present but they are in use on test in cities in many countries right now.

Bus manufacturers are working hard to develop autonomous buses that can handle city streets and, potentially, be more productive in use of road space. The challenge for light rail will be to remain cost effective, especially in terms of running costs. If, in the future, both buses and trams are electrically powered, they will both share the ‘green’ credentials.

The move to autonomous vehicles is not just something that is being driven by high-tech firms in the USA (Tesla and Google being well known proponents, along with Uber). In the UK, the Department for Transport funds the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and, since 2014, the UK government has invested £120 million in autonomous (road) vehicle projects (with a further £68 million coming from industry contributions).

LIDAR tram front corner sensor and radar (square above), and tram front LIDAR (big rectangle) and radar sensor (square below).

Potsdam pioneer

Siemens presented what it called the “world’s first autonomous tram” in Potsdam, just west of Berlin, on the morning the InnoTrans show started on 18 September. Siemens has worked with Potsdam transport operator Verkehrsbetrieb Potsdam (ViP) to develop an autonomous self-driving tram using a Siemens-built Combino prototype/demonstrator vehicle dating from 1996.

The autonomous light-rail technology is a combination of software and algorithms, created by Siemens and housed onboard the trial vehicle in a large computer cabinet, plus a range of hardware, much supplied by automotive parts specialists, attached to the tram and linked to the computer.

Some parts of the system (the high resolution cameras and radar) have already been used by Siemens in its ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance System), now in service as “Siemens Tram Assistant” in Ulm in southern Germany in new Avenio trams and on order for use in several other European cities including Den Haag in the Netherlands. In addition to the cameras and radar, the other key hardware items are LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging ) laser-based measurement systems, a very precise GPS system and actuators to control functions such as braking and power control based upon the computer’s analysis of the data from the sensors.

The system uses a digital map of the network and the software relies on the vehicle (or more precisely its onboard computer) being ‘trained’ to know a specific route. When in use, it continuously uses various sensors and GPS to establish where it is, where it is going, at what speed and where it should stop – either for passenger stops or, in emergencies, stopping immediately if the track is blocked by people, vehicles or other obstructions.

Using its cameras, the system even reads lineside signals, the images being processed by the computer into actionable data – to stop or to proceed – as the tram signalling system only has these two options.

The tram’s stopping accuracy is worth mentioning. The system is designed so the vehicle, which is 26.4 metres long, will stop within a 50cm tolerance at tram stops. In practice, Siemens reported that tests have shown the tram can stop to the 50cm accuracy at stops and then drive from one stop to the next without human intervention.

The autonomous tram prototype has been tested by Siemens and ViP since the summer, operating at up to 50km/h on a section of normal tramway in the southern suburbs of Potsdam, based at the Babelsberg depot. The six-kilometre section chosen includes multiple level road and footpath crossings and tests have operated with a human driver in the cab for supervision of the computers for legal reasons. ViP says the tram driver has not yet had to intervene as the sensors have detected obstructions such as cars, people or cyclists and, via the computer system, used the trams’ braking and power control system to stop it safely.

Successful demonstration

The autonomous Combino demonstrated it can travel at 50km/h without a driver and proved able to stop precisely in platforms whilst also detecting and, where necessary, braking for pedestrians and vehicles in its path, including some deliberately ‘foolish’ pedestrians with prams arranged by ViP especially to prove this!

The system aims to detect all possible obstructions at 100 metres and can stop the vehicle in less than 80 metres, even at full speed.

The system has been ‘taught’ what requires immediate reaction and what doesn’t. This was demonstrated on the test run when, completely by chance, a fairly large bird (a Hooded Crow) landed on the rails about 50 metres in front of the moving tram – the system did not react as its been taught that items this small do not merit attention (the crow sensed the tram and flew off just in time).

Siemens provided onboard screens so the various data from the sensors being analysed by the onboard computer were presented visually for the benefit of the humans onboard.

Unlike traditional communications-based train control (CBTC) type systems (as used on the DLR for example), which send operating signals to the train, the Siemens autonomous tram is ‘intelligent’ enough to know where it is going (having been ‘taught’ the routes) and can ‘read’ signals provided for human operators using its cameras, so does not need signalling information transmitted to it (as CBTC does).

Many cities have automated metros using CBTC but these have dedicated infrastructure and, in many cases, segregated platform spaces (with platform edge doors), so the Potsdam test is a very different operating environment.

Looking forward

Siemens and ViP plan to expand the trial area to more of the Potsdam network, including the city centre, and may, as a first stage, trial completely unmanned operation in the tram depot.

The current legal framework under which trams operate in Germany (BOStrab rules) makes passenger operation without a driver unlikely (although not impossible – automated U-Bahn metro trains already operate under the same legal framework in Nuremburg) and this test vehicle is not designed for public use.

Legal changes to permit autonomous operation of light rail systems would probably follow similar legal changes currently being considered in many countries, including the UK, to permit autonomous self-driving cars and other road vehicles – in most countries light rail regulations are a hybrid mix of road traffic and railway operating rules.

Siemens may have separately developed the Potsdam autonomous tram and sold its ADAS driver-assistance package to several operators, but there is competition emerging for rail drivers’ assistance systems. Bombardier has been supplying Frankfurt’s tram operator VFG with a ‘Driver Assistance System’ using forward looking cameras since 2015.

In addition, German equipment supplier ZF launched a passive collision-avoidance driver-assistance system for trams using artificial intelligence at Innotrans. ZF claims that its ProAI computer system is capable of ‘deep learning’ and using data from onboard radar, cameras and LIDAR to identify and warn the driver about potentially dangerous situations at tram stops, where many people are often moving around the exterior of the tram.

Driver assistance (or replacement?)

Fully autonomous trains are already in operation – in the largely unpopulated Pilbara region of Western Australia where mining company Rio Tinto has been operating 28,000 tonne freight trains without drivers since the summer of 2018. This solution uses an ATO over ETCS L2 solution from Ansaldo STS, combined with onboard sensors for location and speed plus lineside cameras fed to a central control centre for the few locations where human activity may intersect with the railway, such as at level crossings.

The same overlay of ETCS and ATO (as used for the Thameslink ‘core’ in London) is seen by many as the approach for main line rail automation to make it possible in densely populated cities rather than the Australian outback, although many issues remain unresolved.

The Potsdam trial certainly shows the technology has the potential to act as a supervisor for human drivers, preventing, for example, over-speed operation on curves or avoiding collisions with pedestrians or vehicles which, for whatever reason, stray into the path of the vehicle at the last minute.

Whether the technology demonstrated in Potsdam could actually safely replace human drivers/supervisors for unfenced light rail systems anytime in the near future is not clear; however drivers make up the largest part of a light rail operators wage bill (in Potsdam ViP has 116 tram drivers for 53 trams). If buses and taxis migrate to autonomous operation in cities, light rail will probably need to as well so as to avoid being substantially more expensive to operate (and therefore unlikely to attract capital expenditure for fleet or infrastructure renewals).

Arguably, if future legislation and technology permits autonomous buses and cars to share roads with pedestrians and cyclists, then a rail guided vehicle – such as a tram – should be easier to drive autonomously in safety. Unlike a self driving bus, its route is fixed by the rails and pedestrians and other road users are able to see them and thus be aware of the potential for a tram to appear.

Written by Keith Fender.

Read more: The benefits of adopting new technologies

 

An update on the West Midlands Metro

It was just under two years ago that the Rail Engineer went to Birmingham to look at the Midland Metro Alliance programme (issue 146, December 2016). This was a time of preparation with corporate structures bedding down and a long ‘to do’ list. There were also signs of an emerging buoyant construction industry working all over the city.

Two years later, and we’ve returned to meet Alejandro Moreno, director of the Midland Metro Alliance, and Steve Grimes, the alliance’s project director for the Birmingham Westside Metro extension.

The city centre is now almost unrecognisable and is a challenge to navigate – even on foot – although pedestrian wayfinding signage from Birmingham City Council, Transport for West Midlands and the Midland Metro Alliance certainly does help.

Everyone and everything has arrived – even, for a brief period, the Tory party conference with its associated high security and friendly policemen with machine guns.

Battery traction

Before we go any further it is perhaps worth recapping on what has happened with the West Midlands Metro so far. The original system began operation in 1999 with a fleet of 16 trams supplied by AnsaldoBreda. The 20.1km track, serving locations such as the Jewellery Quarter, West Bromwich, Wednesbury and Bilston, ran mainly along the former railway line between Birmingham Snow Hill and Wolverhampton, with a short section of on-street running along Bilston Road to the terminus at St. Georges.

In May 2016, the Birmingham city-centre extension fully opened, which brought the tram right into the heart of the city along busy retail and commercial streets. This extension was part of a £128 million project that saw the purchase of a new 21-strong fleet of CAF Urbos 3 trams, a refurbished depot at Wednesbury and new stops at St Chads, Bull Street, Corporation Street and Grand Central for New Street station.

The line stops abruptly in Pinfold Street, just round the corner from Grand Central, and aims at the logical extension to Victoria and Centenary Squares and beyond to Edgbaston via Five Ways.

Victoria Square is an area of great architectural significance and it was deemed that catenary wires would not be desirable. Thus, 840 metres of twin track will have no overhead structures and the Urbos trams will run on battery power, an option specified at the time of purchase. The batteries are installed in the roof and, at the time of writing, a number of units have had batteries fitted and one unit now carries the new blue livery of West Midlands Metro (left).

There is another location where battery power is required – this time for more mundane structural clearance reasons. This is where the tram uses the existing underpass at the vast Five Ways road junction.

Elsewhere on the network…

Work is underway on other parts of the network. The extension from the existing main line to Wolverhampton railway station, currently being demolished and rebuilt, is due for completion by 2020.

To the east, an application has been made for a Transport and Works Act Order to build and operate the Birmingham Eastside Metro extension from Bull Street to Digbeth.

When granted, the order would allow work to start on the 1.05 mile (1.7km) extension which will serve the proposed HS2 station at Curzon Street, offering connections to New Street, Moor Street and Snow Hill railway stations.

A local public inquiry was closed without objection after a day and a half in November 2017. Pending a decision from the Secretary of State, work is scheduled to begin in 2019 and the line could open by 2023.

In the early stages of development is a scheme for the system to be extended past High Street Deritend, via Birmingham City Football Club and Heartlands Hospital to Birmingham Airport/NEC/International station, terminating at the HS2 interchange station in north Solihull.

A business case has been prepared and was presented to government in June 2017 to extend the Metro from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill. This is an 11km route that runs largely along an existing heavy-rail corridor which, although it has not been used since March 1993, could still carry full-sized trains. As a result, there is a strategic need for the infrastructure design – the track geometry, gauge clearance, substructure and ballast depth – all being able to accommodate heavy rail in the future.

Footpath possessions

All of this is being managed both day-to-day and strategically by the Midland Metro Alliance and Transport for West Midlands. This is basically an agreement between three parties – the client, the construction contractor and the designer. The alliance is not a legal entity like a joint venture.

The client is the West Midlands Combined Authority, which is also a partner in the alliance. The contractor is Colas Rail, (supported by sub-alliance partners Colas Limited, Barhale, Bouygues UK and Auctus Management Group). The designer is Egis Rail UK supported by Tony Gee and Partners and Pell Frischmann.

Whatever may be happening with the strategic issues, it is the ‘here and now’ that is very much to the fore. The ‘here and now’ involves constructing modules of tram track through a city centre that has at least four other independent major infrastructure projects on the go. All of these are competing for space, for resources and for access. None of them have an easy job and none of them would be able to insist on operating in isolation. There has to be close cooperation on a daily basis.

As well as space/resources/access issues, there are the interests of the travelling public to be considered. It is not unusual for vehicular rights to be restricted but, in the case of Birmingham City centre, it is pedestrians that are most affected. As the work progresses, so do the footpath diversions. In addition, there is a need to maintain some public meeting places for events such as the busy and long-established Christmas Market.

It is unusual for an urban tramway to be constructed as a continuous worksite. There are too many conflicting road and foot traffic movements.

As a result, the tram way is constructed in sections, and the sections are, in part, determined by the rail lengths involved and the bending of the rail. The design of the slab track is one that has been used for decades in France and allows a variety of infill options, such as concrete, asphalt or even grass. The road finish is completely independent of the structural support.

The rail is a grooved section – 41 GPU – with concrete sleepers supplied by Stanton Bonna. The traction current is DC and so there has to be a mechanism to eliminate stray return currents. This is achieved by encapsulating the rail sections with an insulating layer provided by Trelleborg. Each rail has the layer factory applied, except for the end 500mm. This allows site welding to be carried out, after which the welded area is coated with a dielectric paint and a site-applied insulating coating. The encapsulation of the rails also assists with the reduction of vibrations from the tramway.

The sections are surrounded and isolated by hoardings. Access is maintained around these islands of activity, but at some stage the sections have to be joined up – an operation that Steve admits can be “tricky – very tricky”. If the window of opportunity for the joining of sections is very limited, then there is the option of constructing precast modules that can be lifted into position.

The original programme of sectional construction has had to be amended in the central area because of the impact of adjoining major developments. As a result, a complete road closure of Paradise Circus is in force.

‘Roman Road’

Although the tramway is run on line-of-sight, and thus does not need continuous signalling, cabling for the information systems for the stops along the route will be fed through dedicated cabling ducts. Cabling only becomes continuous once all the ducting is installed, but there is no such option for rail.

Much of the work is visible – the construction of the slab for the tracks for example. But, before this can happen, there have been extensive service diversions and upgrades. In Pinfold Street, where some of the cellars associated with the properties on one side of the street extended out under the carriageway, these have been reduced in size and strengthened so as to support the track slab.

There was a brief period of media attention when a ‘Roman road’ was uncovered in the area close to Birmingham’s imposing Town Hall. After analysis by archaeologists, ‘Roman road’ turned out to be ‘late 18th century footpath’, but there were interesting archaeological finds nonetheless which went on display at the nearby Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery this summer.

An example of high tech cooperation was the blending of drawing data relating to the track details with data associated with adjacent developments. With the surrounding schemes in the city agreeing a common datum, and by preparing their drawings in accordance with ISO 44001, the true value of BIM (building information modelling) becomes obvious. Collaboration is not only people talking to each other, the drawings need to talk with each other too!

The whole scheme acts as a conduit to channel funds into the local economy and there have been some impressive results. A large percentage of materials for the construction projects was sourced locally and, last year, 26 young people previously not in education, employment or training were recruited from the local community to the project.

Suggestions

Part of the alliance model requires all parties to share pain and to share gain. If works are carried out in a way that creates savings then some of those savings can be used to expand efficiency initiatives.

Alejandro explained the ‘matching-up’ project, which reaches out to start-up companies that have proposed ways of helping the Metro solve specific problems. Currently there are more than 180 different ideas, some of which have become a reality. Eighty companies in the West Midlands have said that they have ideas they want to develop – a review process has started and eleven of those eighty could be useful.

At a detailed level, QR codes have been fitted onto machinery and equipment so that it’s possible to track and manage each item. This is an existing tool in the market but it’s new to the alliance.

“Find a good idea somebody already has and bring it here!” said Alejandro.

A good example that is keeping the workforce and public safe is the SMS barrier, which has a very quick deployment from a trailer. It is a new and innovative steel barrier system from Colas Aximum that has been deployed on alliance projects

Looking forward, the alliance has to consider the complexities of working alongside the HS2 project. Preliminary designs for the section from Bull Street to the HS2 terminus are underway and HS2 is preparing its drawings.

The alliance has considerable credibility when it comes to working with and alongside some very major projects – it’s doing it on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see how the Metro and the high-speed line can blend their efforts.

Read more: Derby station: 79 days later

 

Rebuilding nature’s networks with the railway

View of a green city

Rail’s role in securing a more sustainable future has never been clearer or more important. The sector is already embedding sustainability values into everyday decisions to deliver wider societal benefits through better management of the natural environment. However, the rail sector can still integrate sustainability values further into its business and create opportunities to enhance natural capital.

One concept that is now gaining favour in helping understanding of the natural environment is the term Natural Capital. This incorporates the air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life and which provide us with the renewable and non-renewable materials that we use every day. Our natural environment also gives us benefits in less obvious ways, such as the regulation of water flows, pollinating insects and the mental and physical wellbeing that we get from spending time outside in nature.

Natural capital is not a new concept; the idea that the natural environment provides us with benefits from which we derive value has been around for centuries. But economic systems have not reflected its value in decision-making. This needs to change fast, with our societal and economic success depending on the very capital that we have been degrading. As the Government’s ‘Making Space for Nature’ review emphasised in 2010, “Our natural world is not a luxury: it is fundamental to our wellbeing, health and economy”.

A way forward

‘A Green Future: our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’, was published by the government in January this year and represents a real shift in how nature is perceived and valued. The goals of cleaner air and water, sustainable resource use, plants and animals which are thriving, and better engagement with nature are underpinned by a delivery plan centred around a natural capital approach – incorporating nature’s values into decision-making processes.

This requires a radical shift in the way we approach infrastructure development and there is an expectation that the transport and infrastructure sector will contribute to rebuilding the UK’s natural capital and lead on mitigating against climate change. Indeed, rail figures large in the government’s sister document, ‘The Clean Growth Strategy – leading the way to a low carbon future’. Published last October, this report targets higher growth with lower carbon emissions and identifies low carbon transport solutions as an important element of increasing everyone’s earning potential.

Halving carbon emissions is one of four strategic goals for the railway set out in the 2017 Rail Technical Strategy Capability Delivery Plan, which has been endorsed by both the Rail Delivery Group and the Rail Supply Group.

The role of rail

Shifting freight from road to rail, and decarbonising and optimising energy efficiency in rail, are clearly part of the solution for clean growth, but how are we addressing natural capital?

Traditionally, the environment has appeared at odds with development, with extensive environmental impact assessments addressing negative impacts. However, rail has embraced the concept of no net biodiversity loss and shown sector leadership in delivering compensatory habitat through development.

Take the Thameslink programme and London Bridge station redevelopment for example; WSP helped Network Rail achieve net positive gain for biodiversity by developing robust protocols for biodiversity offsetting and partnering with the London Wildlife Trust. WSP developed the station’s sustainability delivery strategy and it went on to achieve the highest ever CEEQUAL rating for sustainability in civil engineering.

But what if rail development could work with the environment at the outset to enhance natural capital beyond biodiversity gain?

Photo: iStock.

The 25 Year Environment Plan introduced the idea of embedding an ‘environmental net gain’ principle for development across the UK. From a natural capital perspective, this involves considering the environment in an integrated way, making it central to the development process.

Rail has already made significant progress in deriving multiple economic, environmental and social benefits from the way it delivers infrastructure projects. Network Rail’s combined environmental and social performance policy – enshrined in mandated standard NR/L1/ENV/100 – exemplifies that understanding and approach.

WSP is supporting Network Rail in delivering low-carbon electrified routes by conducting robust sustainability option appraisals in design, championing social value and pioneering biodiversity accounting to quantify changes as a result of development. High-profile commitments to achieve a biodiversity net gain as part of major infrastructure development have created project-specific compensatory habitats, which are, in turn, enhancing natural capital.

Network Rail’s recently launched Environmental and Social Appraisal Tool places the impact on environment and society at the forefront of decision-making. This WSP-designed tool offers an opportunity to embed a natural capital approach.

The Network Rail property estate, much of which was recently sold to Telereal Trillium and Blackstone Property Partners, generates over £200 million per year. Just as space in stations and railway arches has been repurposed to become a lucrative source of income, reserves of natural capital could be created to attract third party investment by embedding natural capital accounting in asset management and design feasibility.

Given this strong starting point, there is opportunity for rail to demonstrate, through everyday decision-making, maintenance and operational activities, how its activities can enhance the natural environment and deliver cost-effective solutions to today’s challenges. This requires the use of innovative methods and metrics to better measure natural capital.

Biodiversity net gain is fundamental to this process and the 2012 Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) biodiversity accounting metric is about to be updated and improved. Beyond this, other tools and methods are being developed that consider wider economic and environmental benefits, such as ‘natural capital accounts’ which assess baseline value for natural capital, monitor change over time, economic costs and benefits to society, and enable informed decision making.

Currently undergoing piloting by Oxford University, with support from WSP and others, the Eco-metric is a habitats-based tool for valuing the wider goods and services delivered by biodiversity net gain. It is based on a scoring matrix adjusted for condition and spatial factors, connectivity and time lag, much like the Defra biodiversity metric, and is designed to support users to deliver both biodiversity and environmental net gain.

Driving better outcomes

The rail sector is well positioned to deliver ‘future ready’ schemes by scaling-up the effort to tackle the global environmental challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, resource depletion and waste, and to address the lack of reinvestment in natural capital. By collaborating with developers, asset management providers, sector partners and other players in transit-oriented development, we can drive these outcomes even further.

Rail will be a key player in the transit-orientated development of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Arc, and the Heathrow expansion plan. Collaboration between key parties to deliver natural capital as an integral part of those development opportunities will be a critical success factor.

In the Natural Capital Committee’s recent fifth annual report to the Economic Affairs Committee, the independent advisory body to government highlighted that “a willingness to pool existing resources and funding in new ways and to modify prior plans, including through more integrated approaches” will be vital to determining success. A holistic approach to embedding environmental value will also appeal to increasingly sustainability-savvy passengers and freight transporters who want to contribute to a clean economy and to natural capital. In turn, expertise and experience in successfully rebuilding natural capital will attract investors.

As we have seen with HS2, and that WSP anticipates will also be a key factor in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Arc, rail shapes the spatial distribution of investment in development. The business case for rail and, ultimately, its funding approval, is not simply about journey time improvement, it’s about maximising broader economic development and social value opportunities for the public good. Integrated programmes of work, as well as multi-investor collaborative design and delivery, have the potential to create even greater reservoirs of natural capital and larger havens for flora and fauna, while better connecting communities and stimulating investment.

Focussed on the future

‘Future Ready’ is WSP’s global innovation and sustainability programme to design projects that are ready for our future world as well as today. This programme anticipates future trends, staying ahead of regulation and creating greater value for projects and clients.

WSP’s integrated consents, environmental assessment and land referencing teams are dedicated to making the case for sustainable development, with a focus on innovation, economic prosperity and environmental quality. Their multi-disciplinary expertise enables them to function as one single, integrated project delivery team, working together to ensure best practice is followed throughout a project lifecycle. This means that WSP can embed the latest thinking on natural capital and value creation right at the start of a project, saving time and money further down the line.

An industry leader on the development and application of the Biodiversity Net Gain process, WSP is currently undertaking biodiversity assessments at national and local level for a number of organisations including Highways England.

As work on biodiversity net gain matures within the UK, WSP is at the forefront of ensuring that it’s delivered in the most appropriate way and that opportunities to rebuild our natural capital are explored. This includes expanding ecology services beyond biodiversity net gain to include natural capital assessments and expertise, benefiting from strong ecological foundations and a diversity of experts in air quality, water, economics, consents, environmental impact assessment, social impact evaluation and sustainability.

Protecting and replenishing natural capital is critical to future economic prosperity and wellbeing. Through sensitive management of nature’s assets and delivery of rail infrastructure projects that work with the environment, the sector has enormous potential to demonstrate leadership in rebuilding natural capital and providing society with a sustainable future.

Written by Jenny Merriman, natural capital technical lead, and Anne Dugdale, technical director, town planning, both of WSP.

Read more: Andrew Haines and the future of UK rail

 

1...143144145...291Page 144 of 291