Home Blog Page 152

Residuary inspections of redundant railway structures to continue

Photo: Four by Three.

When British Rail was privatised in 1994, ownership of the operating railway infrastructure passed to Railtrack and subsequently (in 2002) to Network Rail. However, those assets that related to closed lines, redundant bridges and tunnels, abutments, cuttings and viaducts, together known as the Burdensome Estate, first of all stayed with the British Railways Board and then, in 2001, were transferred to the British Railways Board (Residuary), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority.

When the SRA was dissolved in 2005, BRBR passed to the Department for Transport. It was then split up in 2013, with the bulk of its 3,800 assets, including 74 listed structures, passing to the Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate.

Inspection requirement

With ownership passed the responsibility for inspecting and maintaining the structures, which are geographically widespread throughout England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland. To manage the examination of this estate of structural property, new contracts were awarded by Highways England during 2015, dividing the workload into four lots, North, West, East and South. The first three of these were won by Carillion, while the South zone contract went to Balfour Beatty.

Every structure was to be given an annual visual examination. Tunnels are subject to a three-yearly detailed examination while all other structures have one every six years. Both visual and detailed examinations could be more frequent because of special circumstances or the need for more regular observation and/or monitoring.

With Carillion going into liquidation, responsibility for the whole estate was passed to Balfour Beatty, a company that had a wealth of experience as, in addition to the 2015 contract, it had actually been involved in delivering the southern area since 2003, examining an estate of non-operational structures over an area broadly south of a line between the Severn estuary and the Wash.

Richard Storey, Balfour Beatty’s examining engineer, told Rail Engineer that his existing team set about convincing senior management that taking over responsibility for the whole country would be well worth doing. It also allowed the business to provide secure employment for former Carillion employees who had been affected by its receivership in January 2018.

Balfour Beatty inherited a system, back in 2003, which produced paper examination reports with glued-on photographs. This was rapidly changed to an all-electronic reporting process within six months of commencement.

Lune viaduct, Cumbria. Photo: Four by Three.

Since then, the company has lobbied for the use of a web-based data management system, having used one successfully with Network Rail as a JV partner delivering the Structures Assessment Contract in the South (2004-09). Highways England has recently adopted this type of data management system and the real time review of reports is now fully available.

Photographs and forms

This facility has been augmented with the use of both static photography and video capture of significant defects which require elevation or fast-track action. Balfour Beatty uses helmet cameras to assist in this process and augment the client understanding of specific areas of concern, such as structures working under load.

The helmet camera also provides a hands-free, safe method of capturing the data often from remote and difficult to access locations.

In addition, the Balfour Beatty team has also developed a standard drop-down form for visual examinations. This allows for the quick capture of information using prompts in a standard template, uploaded onto a tablet-type computer.

One of the largest risks for the client, as asset owner, is the potential failure of parapets due to accidental loading from vehicular traffic. Balfour Beatty has developed risk assessments with Highways England and other suppliers and these have progressed from a qualitative view of traffic, structure condition and location into a rigorous quantitative assessment, which has now been adopted.

Whilst the previous assessments produced a low/medium/high risk output only, the current one measures traffic flow, the robustness of each parapet, the road alignment, the areas affected by flying debris and the consequences of impact driven by these factors. Balfour Beatty has gone on to develop its own easy-capture data sheet, which allows the examiner to quickly and efficiently record all the required data and gives a set of prompts to ensure that there are no omissions.

Furthermore, in respect of difficult access structures such as confined space examinations, Balfour Beatty will undertake a rigorous assessment and, when safe to do so, will undertake the examination supported by a full rescue team.

Inspecting Castlefield viaduct, Manchester. Photo: Four by Three.

Stakeholder management

One of the key factors in delivering an intense programme on time has been excellent communication. Identifying key issues in the programme, whether it is safety, environmental or even access, is vitally important so that the structures are examined in time.

Keeping key stakeholders such as Network Rail, local authorities, highway and river authorities, as well as the general public, informed on how the examination of a structure will be delivered has provided the platform for success.

Balfour Beatty’s approach to collaborative working has provided the tools to the examinations team to undertake early engagement on critical issues, and this will continue to be an important instrument as it goes on to deliver a national programme of detailed examinations.

Resourcing

The existing staffing for Balfour Beatty’s original contract was three examiners, a technical administrator and an examining engineer. With the additional areas taken on, the company is working towards increasing this to 17 as soon as possible.

Although it would have been good to inherit the Carillion staff, with their experience and local knowledge under their stewardship, this was not possible as the TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) Regulations were not applicable in this case as Carillion had made its staff redundant. Fortunately, however, it has been possible for Balfour Beatty to re-recruit nine of the former Carillion staff – six examiners, a tunnel engineer, a senior structural engineer and a programme coordinator.

In taking on the new staff, one of the early challenges for the team has been to induct everyone into Balfour Beatty ‘thinking’ – especially the safety culture. Also, there has been a thorough review of competencies.

Because a high proportion of the examiners’ time is spent on site as lone workers, the Skyguard system is used. In the event of an examiner suffering an accident or sudden illness, this system allows help to be summoned, with GPS accuracy for the location of the casualty.

By June, most of the required extra staff had been recruited, inducted, kitted out with vans, phones, laptops and PPE and were ready to go, with only a couple of vacancies left to fill. In effect, it has actually only been a matter of a few weeks now since the resources have been fully in place to get back up to speed with the examinations. There will obviously be some catching up to do throughout this contract year.

Inspections of Wath Road tunnel, West Yorkshire, now have to be conducted from a boat. Photo: Four by Three.

Initial findings

In commencing work nationally, Balfour Beatty has found some significant differences from its original South lot. Firstly, the population of the structures in terms of the mix of types is different. Also, very few of the structures in the South are in urban areas, whereas there is a higher percentage elsewhere.

On the other hand, of course, in the three new lots, there are many more structures in fairly remote locations. Overall, these effects have meant that the planning resource required is bigger than simply a pro-rata adjustment.

Apart from the Balfour Beatty examination team’s original base at Redhill, Manchester and York are being used as regional centres. Other staff operate largely from home.

The transfer has gone smoothly. Dave Parker of the Historical Railways Estate commented on the early success of this contract transfer: “Highways England is extremely thankful to Balfour Beatty for rising to this significant challenge at short notice.”

Innovations

It is worth mentioning some innovations that Balfour Beatty has introduced, one relatively simple, the other more sophisticated and undergoing successful trials.
First is the introduction of a digital camera attached to an elongated ‘selfie stick’, enabling examination of, for example, the spandrel walls of a viaduct, not otherwise easily visible at close range without scaffolding, a hydraulic platform or roped access.

The other promising development is in the use of a drone to fly alongside a large structure and take photographs at defined 3D coordinates that can then be exactly replicated on subsequent inspections, making it feasible to track changes in the structure’s condition. So far, this has been trialled at Pensford Viaduct on the closed Frome-North Somerset branch line.

Extension to other work

Experience on this contract will undoubtedly be put to use on other parts of Balfour Beatty’s workload. For example, the long-closed Rhondda Tunnel in South Wales (issue 160, February 2018) is being considered for possible reopening as a cycle route. The tunnel, which has been sealed shut since 1980, cannot be considered for re-opening until ownership is transferred to a Welsh Government body. This requires an understanding of the tunnel’s condition and maintenance liabilities to justify a change in ownership.

Work included replacing the cap on the sealed ventilation shaft with a hatch to allow Balfour Beatty experts to be lowered daily 20 metres down the shaft before they could carry out their examination. This lasted six days and consisted of a tactile inspection of almost two miles of the tunnel’s sidewalls, haunches and crown using mobile access towers and long tapping poles to verify the condition of the structure throughout.

Inside Rhonda Tunnel and its newly cut access. Photo: Four by Three.

The examination also addressed potential methods for the rectification of any defects to build a full understanding of the works required to make the tunnel suitable for re-opening. Now the examination team is assisting the technical services department in setting up remote monitoring of a ‘hinge’ fracture which is 1,000 metres from the nearest access, one of the tunnel shafts.

Rhondda Tunnel Society project secretary Tony Moon commented: “Balfour Beatty has been working in harmony with volunteers from the Rhondda Tunnel Society and we are thrilled as the examination work marks a significant step in the tunnel’s reopening. We are looking forward to the completed report that will help convince the Welsh Government that this Victorian masterpiece can be restored to become a major attraction to cyclists and walkers.”

Read more: Extending Worcester’s Battenhall Bridge

 

Issue 166 – Attracting talent

The National Skills Academy for Rail forecasts technical skills shortages in the rail industry of around 10,000 people over the next five years. This is a particular issue for signalling, telecommunications and traction and rolling stock, where forty percent of the workforce is aged over fifty.

Furthermore, the increasing pace of technological change requires new skills. For example, making sense of the vast amount of data generated by low-energy sensor networks, Building Information Modelling (BIM), and the integration of rolling stock, signalling and communications systems to successfully deliver the digital railway. In addition, railways require sophisticated heavy mechanical and electrical engineering to propel and keep trains on the track at 200km/h and more.

Hence more technicians and graduates are required to meet this shortfall. This is a general issue for the UK engineering sector, which is estimated to require 87,000 engineering graduates a year over the next ten years. However, railways have a further challenge – they are perceived as old-fashioned, unexciting and problematic. This was illustrated by a Young Rail Professionals study that revealed that only eight per cent of graduates would consider a railway career.

Yet most railway engineers would consider their career to be satisfying as it offers fascinating challenges and the opportunity to work with great people, complex systems and awesome kit. If the industry cannot entice young engineers, costs will rise as expertise is imported and the investment programmes that will be needed to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for rail travel will be delayed.

Attracting talent is thus both an imperative and a challenge to which the industry must respond.

Engineers from the IMechE’s Railway Division responded by spending three days in the Leicestershire countryside to run their annual Railway Challenge at Stapleford. Our report on this event shows how over a hundred young engineers had to overcome demanding problems to enable their miniature locomotives to compete on various trials.

Although this was not without its frustrations, it offered the opportunity to put theory into practice, overcome real challenges, learn from others and have fun. It’s difficult to think of a better way to attract talent to the industry. Those who organised and ran this event are to be commended, as should be the companies who entered teams or sponsored them.

With plans to expand the competition from ten to thirty locomotives, there is scope for much greater industry participation. It would be good to see some more well-known companies participating in next year’s Railway Challenge.

The skills demonstrated by those at Stapleford included coding software for Arduino processor boards, using an automotive CANBUS network to link microprocessors without a host computer and integrating traction, energy recovery and braking systems. Such skills are needed throughout the industry, including the digital railway programme.

Making the digital railway programme a success is the subject of Paul Darlington’s report on a two-day conference hosted by the Railway Industry Association, Network Rail and the University of Birmingham. Much of this related to contractor engagement and procurement strategy relating to infrastructure work. However, despite the emphasis on the total railway system, there were few train operators or rolling stock providers present.

The expanding digital railway will also significantly increase wireless data flows. As we explain, this is one reason why GSM-R will need to be replaced with a new telecommunication system which is likely to involve LTE, 3GPP, 5G, mMIMO and ReefShark.   

Clive Kessell has also been to a digital railway conference, this one about Traffic Management Systems (TMS). His report shows that TMS can be successfully implemented, although it is a lot harder to do than many first thought, and that TMS means different things to different people.

Traffic management is an essential feature of the 57-kilometre Gotthard base tunnel’s control system, as we describe. In another Swiss tunnel feature, Clive considers why and how a new tunnel is being bored alongside the existing six-kilometres-long metre-gauge Albula tunnel, which is expected to open in 2022.

As well as tunnels, we feature bridges small, large and redundant. Nigel Wordsworth reports how Network Rail has launched a footbridge design competition, in conjunction with the Royal Institute of British Architects. On a larger scale, we explain how a new 1,500 tonne-underbridge was built off-line and then put in place so that part of the Worcester by-pass could become a dual carriageway.

Inspection of redundant bridges, and other structures on closed lines is now the responsibility of Highways England. Mark Phillips explains why and how this work is managed.

With Britain’s only high-speed line now fifteen years old, it’s time to think about its track renewals strategy. As Chris Parker explains, HS1 presents different challenges from conventional track renewals, although renewing track on low-speed lines can also present significant challenges, as illustrated by our report on the nine-day blockade to renew Newcastle station’s south junction.

As shown above, this month’s Rail Engineer offers its usual variety of features that we think paint an impressive picture of railway engineering. Hence, we would ask that, once our readers have read the magazine, they do their bit to attract youngsters to the industry by passing it on to a budding young railway engineer.

Read more: Extending Worcester’s Battenhall Bridge

 

Extending Worcester’s Battenhall Bridge

The A4440 Worcester Southern Link Road (SLR) is an essential part of Worcestershire’s strategic road network and provides an important link between junction 7 of the M5, South and West Worcester, Great Malvern, the wider Malvern Hills district, Ledbury, Upton and Herefordshire.

An important bypass to the city centre, the SLR is used by well over 30,000 cars each weekday and provides one of only two road crossings of the River Severn in Worcester City. It therefore offers an important, alternative route to the city centre, which would otherwise suffer from congestion.

To improve capacity, and therefore reduce journey times and improve journey time reliability, the local Highways Authority, Worcestershire County Council, devised an overarching scheme to dual the busiest stretch of the SLR between the M5 and Powick. This scheme is being delivered in phases and includes a new bridge over the River Severn as the final phase of the scheme.

The scheme also called for a railway bridge, which carries the North Cotswold line between Paddington and Worcester, to be extended at Battenhall to enable dualling of this part of the SLR. Once this phase of the scheme is completed by spring 2019, two northbound lanes will then go under the original bridge and two southbound lanes under the new, extended part of the bridge.

To minimise disruption to traffic, the plan was to build the new bridge off-line a short distance from its final position, and then to move it into place using a self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT).

Planning the works

Principal contractor for the scheme was Worcestershire County Council’s term civil engineering contractor, Alun Griffiths, working in conjunction with the council’s term design consultant, Jacobs. The council’s term rail consultant, SLC Rail, was engaged to manage the project and Tony Gee and Partners brought in as the Category 3 Independent Checker for the bridge design, based on the client’s evaluation criteria that included capability, quality and financial assessments.

Specialists from SLC Rail negotiated the third party underbridge agreement with Network Rail and facilitated the design approval, reviewing and providing feedback to the designers before final submission.

The team of project managers from SLC Rail, contractors and Network Rail’s asset protection personnel carried out extensive risk assessments on sufficiency of time, manpower and machinery as well as to ensure completion within the designated blockade possession time.

Having completed the check of the bridge design, Tony Gee was engaged by Alun Griffiths to undertake a series of temporary works designs for the bridge construction. The vast majority of designs required technical approval from Network Rail, with Tony Gee also acting as the contractor’s responsible engineer for the temporary works designs.

The series of temporary works designs included the complex analysis of the existing bridge to determine the effects on the structure during construction of the new bridge. This included finite element analysis of the anticipated ground movements and their effect on the existing bridge during construction, analysis of the effects of the above movements on the existing bridge structure and the design of multiple-strand ground anchors to retain the north abutment as the railway was being rebuilt around the repositioned structure.

The concern was that the differential loading on the existing bridge, which would result from the excavation of fill to the south abutment, could lead to movement in the structure. One solution could have been to excavate the northern abutment as well, to ‘balance’ the forces and remove the risk of movement. However, it was decided that the best option was to install ground anchors, effectively ‘pinning’ the northern abutment in place and obviating the need to temporarily excavate the northern abutment.

The analysis determined both the predicted and allowable movements of the existing structure with the anchors in place. Limits were set to ensure that the structure would remain within serviceability criteria. Contingency limits were also determined, in addition to contingency measures to be implemented should limits be exceeded. Movements were predicted at various stages throughout the construction sequence for comparison against actual values during the blockade, when the movements of the existing structure were captured using an automatic total station, tilt and strain gauges with data uploaded in ‘real time’ to an online platform. This enabled the Tony Gee engineers, on site throughout the blockade, to continuously monitor the movements against the predicted figures as construction proceeded.

Throughout the blockade, the bridge movements all stayed below predicted levels and well within limits.

As the installation of the temporary works would impact the existing bridge capacity, both during and following the works, Tony Gee also undertook an assessment of the structure to demonstrate that it would still achieve the required capacity.

Closure and blockade

Prior to the blockade, the route of the new southbound carriageway was excavated and levelled, apart from one ‘embankment’ section on which the railway sat undisturbed. Once the new road alignment was effectively complete, Alun Griffiths constructed the new bridge from reinforced concrete, complete with wing walls. The finished structure was 34 metres wide overall with a single, arched 13.5-metre portal and weighed around 1,500 tonnes.

With the build of the new bridge complete and all railway critical signalling and telecommunications diverted, everything was ready for a closure of the A4440 to move the bridge into place. This was planned from Thursday 24 May to Friday 1 June, with the railway blockade running from Saturday 26 May to Thursday 31 May.

Meticulous planning went into every aspect of this project including the traffic management put into place with such a key route into and out of the county being closed for nearly a week. No stone was left unturned in the quest to reduce congestion and to encourage motorists to think ahead and take alternative routes before the formal diversion route was reached.

On the Thursday prior to the blockade, the SPMT was set up by Mammoet below the new bridge. In addition to the SPMT, three hydraulic struts were installed to cross-prop between the abutment walls. These would prevent the inwards ‘swing’ of the abutment walls once the bridge was lifted. Prior to lifting, they were preloaded and then adjusted before the bridge was set-down to return the bridge to its original geometry.

Once the SPMT was set up and the hydraulic struts pre-loaded a trial lift was undertaken. This went without issue and the team then turned its focus to the enabling works that could now be undertaken during the road closure.

On the morning of the blockade, the first priority was to remove 112 metres of double track and its remaining embankment. 22,000 tonnes of soil were removed and a portable roadway was laid to accommodate the transporters that would move the new bridge to its destination. Alun Griffiths prepared and levelled the formation below the abutment and wingwall foundations.

In addition to working on Battenhall bridge, SLC Rail is also rail advisor to Worcestershire County Council for the new Worcestershire Parkway station. To reduce costs, SLC’s project manager at Worcestershire Parkway worked with colleagues to schedule works that made the most of the Battenhall bridge rail blockade. During the closure, workers replaced sleepers and rails on the Oxford, Worcester, Wolverhampton (OWW) line, realigned track to facilitate possible twin-tracking in future and undertook the piling for the new station platform.

Back at Battenhall bridge, once everything was ready, the three-module transporter picked up the bridge using its hydraulic jacks and was slowly driven along the temporary roadway into position, ending up just 30mm away from the abutment of the original, single-carriageway bridge.

Once the transporter had set the bridge down, it was removed and the backfilling operation commenced. The void left between the existing and new bridge measured just nine metres by six metres and required infilling with 350m3 of fill. In order to lift the fill into place, Alun Griffiths utilised a conveyor – once in place it was compacted with a remotely controlled compacting plate. Between the rear of the southern abutment and benched excavation of the existing ground, approximately 2,100m3 of fill was hauled into place and compacted.

Once the structure was backfilled, the track was re-laid, which itself required 216 new sleepers, four 112-metre lengths of rail and 1,200 tonnes of new ballast. Several hundred metres of cable trough were renewed, as well as the diversion and reinstatement of all safety critical signalling and telecommunications infrastructure.

The thorough pre-planning, execution and risk management resulted in the new bridge being completed early, enabling the Southern Link Road to be reopened to traffic 36 hours ahead of schedule and the railway possession to be handed back to Network Rail at the designated time. All in all, 180 engineers were on site, working three eight-hour shifts each day, to make sure the project was completed on time.

Alun Griffiths’ rail director Shaun Thompson was pleased with the outcome. “The Battenhall Bridge project team planned, rehearsed and executed the works with meticulous precision,” he said afterwards. “The detailed productivity study and risk assessments ensured contingencies were in place for all eventualities. With input from our infrastructure colleagues on the SLR, the safe delivery of this project was an incredible success and demonstrates our multi-skilled capability. Well done to all involved.”

Communication

In addition to the bridge being moved into place successfully and ahead of time, another success of the project was the communication to local residents, road and rail users.

On the run up to, during and after the bridge move, the communications team at Worcestershire County Council kept a steady stream of content accessible to stakeholders. This was done through the more traditional updates through local media and via the website, but by far the biggest engagement came through the Council’s social media channels. A number of time-lapse videos, shown throughout the project, were collectively viewed more than 500,000 times. This meant that key groups across the county, and further afield, felt informed. It also helped to keep the congestion on the diversion routes to a minimum as a very high number of local residents and businesses were aware of the project, timelines and the potential impact on the local routes.

The project is an excellent example of a progressive Local Authority, with a clear transport infrastructure strategy, commissioning leading consultants and contractors from the private sector to deliver outstanding results for local residents and those using the local infrastructure.

Read more: Rail Engineer August 2018 – Infrastructure focus

 

Rail Engineer August 2018: Infrastructure focus

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

Hitachi’s Class 385 enters service

Class 385 arrives at Glasgow Queen Street.
Class 385 arrives at Glasgow Queen Street.

At 12:52 on 23rd July a train formed of four-car unit 385104 and three-car unit 385003 left Glasgow Queen Street for a non-stop run to Edinburgh. This train entered normal passenger service the following day. On this inaugural run of Hitachi’s Class 385 EMU ScotRail’s managing director Alex Hynes and Hitachi Rail Europe’s managing director Karen Boswell were on hand to talk to the press and stakeholders.

These seven-coach trains have 479 seats which is 27 per cent more than the Class 170 DMUs operating on the route. Eight-coach Class 385 trains with 546 seats will operate once the station enhancement work at Queen Street enables its platforms to be extended.

Introduction of the Class 385, scheduled for autumn last year, was delayed due to the late completion of the line’s electrification, the time taken to ramp up production at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe’s plant and the much-publicised windscreen problem. This was resolved within a few months as it was possible to fit the new windscreens to the already-built units at their Craigentinny maintenance depot in a day or so.

Furthermore, the windscreen problem did not halt the mileage accumulation runs that are needed to demonstrate 2,000 miles fault free running before trains can be accepted. This was done during the daytime by DB Schenker drivers.

Due to this delay the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line is currently operated by a mix of trains. As well as the Class 170 DMUs that have been operating the service since 2000, ScotRail has arranged for Class 380 EMUs (released from Ayrshire and Inverclyde services) and Class 365 EMUs (surplus units leased from Eversholt) to operate the service. On July 20th all services on the line were electric trains.

There are currently 11 Class 385 units in Scotland and the Newton Aycliffe plant is producing them at the rate of around one a week which would complete the order for 70 Class 385 units by summer next year.

New drivers cab windscreen (right) and original windscreen (left).
New drivers cab windscreen (right) and original windscreen (left).

The two units on the inaugural train are currently the only units accepted by ScotRail. A further two units are expected to be accepted this week, it is likely that these will initially be used for ScotRail’s driver training programme for their enhanced services. As well as the Class 385 EMUs, this requires hundreds of drivers to be trained on HSTs and Class 365 EMUs.

Acceptance is a time-consuming process which ScotRail can do at the rate of two per week. It is understood that, other than minor software issues, there have been few problems with these units and no infrastructure interface issues.

As these units are gradually introduced the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line should have a full Class 385 service by the end of the year when it is planned to reduce journey time to 42 minutes between the two cities. This will only be possible with the electrification of local services to Stirling to remove slower DMUs from the line.

Services to Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa for Glasgow and Edinburgh will eventually be operated by Class 385 EMUs but will initially be operated by Class 365 EMUs. When the full fleet of 70 Class 385 units has been introduced, they will also operate services to North Berwick, Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shotts (due to be electrified in March 2019) and Glasgow’s Cathcart circle services.

It was clear from his public-address announcement on the inaugural Class 385 train that Alex Hynes was clearly delighted to have the Class 385 trains running between Glasgow and Edinburgh. This, and their introduction on other soon-to-be electrified services, will give passengers in Scotland’s central belt many extra seats. However, as Alex pointed out, rail passengers throughout Scotland will benefit due to the cascade of diesel units made possible by these new electric trains.

Read more: Changing trains in Scotland

To close a crossing (or reroute, replace, divert or extinguish it)

Great Britain has one of the best level crossing safety records in Europe. This is a commendable position, given that the rail network is one of the most intensively used in the world. Network Rail’s 20,000 miles of track directly interface with around 6,000 roads and footpath systems, therefore the challenge to manage public and passenger safety is immense. In spite of the improved safety record and targeted approach to managing level crossing safety, level crossings continue to present one of the biggest public safety risks on the railway.

Accidental fatalities still occur each year across the network. These, coupled with a consistently high rate of near miss incidents and, less frequently, collisions with road vehicles, reinforce the potential risks which exist at level crossings. With the prediction of growth in both rail and road journeys and the addition of the localised pressure from population growth, further improvements to manage safety are still required.

As with any risk, the best way to manage it is to eliminate it, so long as that is practical and the costs are not excessive. In the case of level crossings, elimination means one of three alternatives: the closure of the right of way, its diversion, or the substitution of an over or under-line bridge for the level crossing.

Options

Closure is worth investigation, but often is clearly not feasible. It is usually the best and cheapest option where it can be done.

Bridges are expensive, whether they go over or under the line. Their installation is also potentially very disruptive for the railway, for neighbours and for users of the right of way. They also leave a future liability for the maintenance and eventual renewal of the structure, and in the case of underbridges, may have implications for track and other assets. Land may have to be acquired to allow bridge construction, and this too, may be a challenge.

The railway has been an innovative institution for hundreds of years, and so advanced techniques have been regularly employed to permit the quicker, cheaper and less disruptive installation of bridges. These have included jacking subways under the tracks, building bridges alongside the railway and sliding them under it, and the prefabrication of overbridge superstructures so that these can be craned into place under relatively short possessions.

Despite all of this, a bridge is not always the answer, especially in the case of footways, bridleways and the like. The costs and disruption of a bridge to meet the requirements of users who may include cyclists, horse riders, wheelchair users, wheeled-suitcase haulers and parents with baby buggies (among others), can easily be out of all proportion to the usage of the crossing.

The Liabilities team at Network Rail’s LNE & East Midlands is on the case of the awkward crossings, and Rail Engineer met team member David Shorrocks to hear what they are doing.

He explained that their biggest concern is with public level crossings, which bring the greatest potential for problems. Private crossings are more easily managed, since in each case only a limited number of people usually hold crossing rights. Often there is only one rights holder, typically the owner of lands that were severed when the rail line was constructed. This makes it relatively easy to negotiate with those rights-holders and agree some way to eliminate or manage down any risks.

Legislation

Public crossings are a very different matter, being available for use by any member of the public who happens to come along, and being subject to statutory control and regulation. There are three principal sets of legal regulatory instruments that affect public crossings. These are the Highways Act 1980, the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (T&CPA) and the Transport & Works Act 1992 (TWA).

The Highways Act contains five sections that allow the variation or closure of a public right of way, each relating to different circumstances. The local Highways Authority administrates these matters, and Network Rail has to work with it and under its direction to make use of the powers available in this way. Furthermore, the Authority may have to apply to a local magistrates’ court, or a public inspector in some cases, in determining whether an application is approved or rejected.

If an application to affect a crossing is made under the TWA, then the Secretary of State becomes involved, as the works may only proceed if a Transport & Works Act Order is granted by him. This course is generally only followed when the closure of a crossing is being sought as a part of a larger scheme of works that rely upon closure of the crossing. On occasion it may be used when, as a part of the diversion of right of way, a bridge is to be constructed. If the landowner will not sell the required land for the bridge, a TWA Order may be used to overcome this. The Highways Authority can force a footpath onto a third party’s land but has no power to order the construction of a bridge.

The T&CPA would be used where it was required to divert a public right of way as a result of the granting of planning permission. For example, if the planning consent was for the construction of a bridge that could not be constructed without such a diversion, an order could be made under the T&CPA for that diversion to be made. Section 247 of the Act would apply if the right of way was one for mechanically propelled vehicles; if it were a footpath or bridleway, then Section 257 would apply.

There is one further applicable Act of Parliament that may occasionally be used in addition to the three main ones already described. This is the Planning Act 2008, under which Development Control Orders (DCOs) may be made. A DCO would be used for a large-scale new railway development, typically involving more than 2km of new railway line. A DCO is similar to a TWA Order but with rather more stringent timescales.

Interest groups

However the individual level crossing case is dealt with, Network Rail’s approach would always be to engage with stakeholders and endeavour to bring them into agreement with the proposals. Various of the statutory measures that may be used to alter or remove a right of way in order to eliminate a crossing include statutory requirements to consult. However, Network Rail always prefers to go further than the legal minimum, and to sound out opinion before formal consultation. In this way it hopes to forestall objections based upon inaccurate understanding, and also to be able to tailor proposals to remove aspects that are unpopular or impractical for affected parties.

Other considerations affect level crossing removal schemes, particularly the Equality Act, which very often affects proposals for bridges replacing crossings. In urban areas, it is certain that any bridge will have to accommodate the needs of disabled persons and baby buggies. In rural areas, it is no longer the case that such needs can be assumed not to apply. There are such things as cross-country wheelchairs and baby buggies, so crossings that might seem remote could also be forced to comply with these regulations.

Horse riders are another group whose needs have to be taken into account where a crossing is on a bridleway or other right of way that they are entitled to use. As well as needing to be accessible, any replacement for a level crossing would have to allow the required headroom for horse and rider. Over-line bridges must have suitably high parapets for these users. Underbridges (subways) may have to be sufficiently high that the rider doesn’t have to dismount as the right of way may stipulate that the rider may cross while mounted.

David has a list of stakeholders who would typically need to be approached for any level crossing scheme. This runs to about a dozen, including public rights of way officers, landowners, ramblers, parish councillors, the Environment Agency or Internal Drainage Board (if a water course is involved), the Canal & River Trust (if a canal or navigation is affected), and other parties that are active in certain areas, such as the Open Space Society, a local association like the Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Association, or a Local Access Forum. Byways and bridleways bring in additionally specialist stakeholders, including the British Horse Society or the Byway & Bridleway Trust.

Diverse examples

Generally the Network Rail approach is to try to assist in enhancing the network of public rights of way, to assist local landowners and to minimise effects on the environment whilst also meeting its own objectives of improving railway safety, reducing future cost and eliminating speed restrictions and other impacts of level crossings upon the railway.

He described a number of examples where this approach has been applied, or is in the course of application:

Highway Act 1980 Section 116 – Cow Lane is used by farmers to access their land means that they have to drive large agricultural machines through narrow village streets and over a level crossing across the railway. The proposal is a new private roadway for the farmers, alongside the railway from a different highway to the field side of the level crossing. The crossing would be stopped up and removed. The result would be the removal of the large vehicles from unsuitable village streets and a private road access to their fields for the farmers. Engagement with stakeholders has taken place and the plans are being progressed.

Highway Act 1980 Section 118 – near Filey, a path crosses a level crossing to go only to one farm. The farm’s owners have no interest in using it. Network Rail has applied under the Act for an extinguishment order.

Highway Act 1980 Section 119 – at West Rounton, an existing level crossing on top of an embankment is approached by steep climbs up each side of the bank. The proposal is to re-route the path to an existing cattle creep underbridge 20 metres away. It will benefit path users by eliminating the need to climb over the embankment. The farmer was unhappy about possible disturbance to his livestock, which like to shelter under the bridge. However, Network Rail has offered to divert another section of the path, routing it off one of his fields by taking it via a nearby lane. This approach looks likely to be successful.

Highway Act 1980 Section 118/118A – in Lincolnshire, a bridleway over a level crossing may be extinguished to allow the crossing to be removed. There is already a public footpath running parallel to the rail line from a private road part way towards the level crossing. Converting that into a bridleway and extending it to the crossing site would allow users to use it to reach an over-line bridge that carries a private road over the railway and then rejoin the existing bridleway route a little further along the road.

Highway Act 1980 Section 118A – in a similar way to the previous example, existing rights of way are to be used to allow a crossing closure at Kirkham Abbey and the extinguishment of a right of way that uses it. However, in this case, the use of the new route involves a public road and it is necessary to carry out improvements here to make the route safer and more convenient for walkers. This case involves the use of a Rail Safety Order, something that a Highway Authority may do under Section 118A if a crossing is unsafe for public use. Section 118A was added to the Act by the T&WA 1992 to allow such Orders to be made where rail safety demands it. Network Rail has to prove, to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority (or possibly a public inspector), that the route over the railway crossing is unsafe, and that it is not feasible or economically feasible to make it safe. If the case is made, an Order will be made, although it might not necessarily just permit Network Rail to divert the route. It might be required, for example, to provide a new bridge instead.

Highway Act 1980 Section 119A – Section 119A is similar in concept to Section 118A, and was also added by the T&W Act 1992. However, this section provides for a brand new route to replace the one over the level crossing. On the East Coast main line (ECML) in Northumberland, where the diversion has already been completed and the crossing has been removed, the Rail Safety Order extinguished a barely used section of route and diverted it parallel to the railway, to an underbridge on a private road.

T&W Act – Network Rail is looking to reinstate a fourth track on the ECML near Abbots Ripton and increase the number of trains. For rail safety, it is necessary to divert a bridleway and close the level crossing. A previous British Railways Act had been used in the past to reduce this right of way from full public highway to bridleway. It will now be necessary to divert the route parallel to the railway to an existing underbridge some 375 metres away along the line, and back the other side of the railway to the existing route. David held a “walkout” with stakeholders as part of the formal consultation, and the work is expected to be implemented in the next nine months.

Development Control Order – work on the Doncaster North Chord at Honeylands Lane involves the construction of a new chord line some 3.2km in length. Two level crossings are affected. One will be moved some distance, to take it from what will become a three-track section onto a two-track location.

These nine examples are not a comprehensive review of the various options, but give a good general indication of the possible approaches and scope available in seeking to eliminate level crossings by extinguishment or diversion. It can be seen that bridges are not the only options.

Also, although some believe that the safest level crossing is a closed level crossing, David hastened to explain that Network Rail does not pursue closure of every level crossing that is looked at. As illustration, of the 1,715 crossings on the route, 114 have been closed since the start of CP5. Which means that 1,601 remain open (for the moment!).

Read more: Securing a future for one of England’s longest disused railway tunnels

 

Low-cost, lightweight rail vehicles for low-density routes

You want to reopen a disused rail line. You’ve got permission to do so, you have organised to close, re-route or otherwise deal with rights of way over the infrastructure and you have found a way to deal with the housing development that’s been built on the route and sorted out the design and construction or refurbishment of track and signalling systems.

The challenges are similar if you want to improve mobility in a town or city. Once you’ve sorted the infrastructure, you need to choose trains to run on the railway. Currently, choices are limited to up-cycled ex-Underground trains, Pacers or other old diesel trains. However, you want the railway to have green credentials and you do not see why a rail vehicle should be three times the weight of a bus and cost at least five times as much and, at best, look like “something of its time”!

There might be something different on the horizon.

Radical solution

Rolling back a few years, the 2012 Railway Technical Strategy led to a competition called “Radical Train”, which was aimed at producing technology demonstrators – real things that people could see, feel and touch which would be inspirational and show the way ahead for the industry. Your author, before “retirement”, was part of a panel of judges assessing aspects of the short-listed entries.

One of these was from a consortium of companies that was proposing a very light self-powered train. They won a modest award from the RSSB Future Railway Enabling Innovation Team, funded by the DfT, in November 2013, which led to further funding to develop a self-powered bogie with an integral, hybrid propulsion system and kinetic energy recovery system.

In May 2018, Eversholt Rail, one of the UK’s rolling stock owners, announced that it had joined the Revolution VLR consortium and programme, the industry consortium that will develop, manufacture and market the Revolution VLR (very light rail) vehicle. The consortium, led by Transport Design International Ltd (TDI), includes WMG (formerly the Warwick Manufacturing Group) at the University of Warwick, Cummins, Unipart Rail and other companies from the automotive and rail sectors.

The Revolution VLR vehicle is intended to deliver lightweight, energy-efficient system solutions for affordable service growth and extension of the UK’s rail network. A bi-directional, 18-metre-long railcar, with seating for 56 passengers and standing room for a further 60, Revolution VLR will use lightweight materials and a modular structure to achieve a tare weight of less than one tonne per linear metre. This allows it to run on lightweight modular slab track. The vehicle will be self-propelled, achieve zero-emission launches from stations and be fitted with regenerative braking and optimised hybrid propulsion.

The consortium and programme explained that they will benefit from Eversholt Rail’s market knowledge and extensive experience in rolling stock asset and project management, including the successful service introduction of many fleets of new trains. Mary Kenny, Eversholt Rail CEO, said: “Eversholt Rail has a strong record of innovation in the UK rolling stock industry through introducing new products, technologies and manufacturers to the market. Our investment in the Revolution VLR programme will extend this into the light rail sector and provide further opportunities for growth within the industry.”

New scheme

In June 2018, a further step forward was taken with the announcement that Transport Design International, based in Stratford-upon-Avon, has won a contract to work with WMG to design and construct an innovative very light rail vehicle which will be part of a new transport solution for Coventry. They will create a state-of-the-art, lightweight, battery-operated, rail-guided vehicle which will ultimately be capable of operating without a driver.

The project, funded by the Government’s Local Growth Fund through the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP) and the West Midlands Combined Authority Devolution Deal, is being managed by researchers from WMG at the University of Warwick in collaboration between Coventry City Council and Transport for West Midlands.

The West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Devolution Deal funding has provided £12.2 million to undertake the research and development required to prove the VLR concept. In addition, the WMCA has allocated specialist resource from Transport for West Midlands to provide technical support, advice and guidance to the project team as the scheme develops.

The prototype vehicle will be capable of carrying 20 seated passengers and a maximum of 70, including standees. It will be tested at the Very Light Rail National Innovation Centre in Dudley before a permanent tracked route is installed across Coventry and a fleet of vehicles manufactured.

Politicians from Coventry City Council and members of the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership welcomed the initiative. The participants in the consortium were delighted by the politicians’ confidence in them, summed up by Martin Pemberton, managing director of Transport Design International, who said: “As champions of sustainable, lightweight transport solutions, the TDI team is very proud to have been selected to undertake this exciting, flagship project for Coventry. We look forward to working closely with the City Council and WMG to bring their aspirations to reality.”

Rail Engineer hopes to produce an in-depth article on the engineering and technology to be used on VLR in due course.

Read more: New operator and development partner for Wales and Borders

 

Two great saves: SPL Powerlines picks up electrification work after Carillion’s collapse

The collapse of Carillion on 15 January 2018, strictly a ‘trading liquidation’, had a number of ramifications for the rail industry. Faced with the possibility of work on several key projects simply stopping, PwC, the Official Receiver’s special manager, and Network Rail came to an agreement which ensured that PwC could pay employees’ wages for work done on and supporting Network Rail’s projects until after Easter, and also made arrangements to ensure rail employees were paid as normal in January for work done in January.

Carillion Construction employees working on and supporting Network Rail projects were encouraged to turn up for work as normal and continue to deliver their rail work and projects, secure in the knowledge that they would be paid by PwC for the work they did.

This was a major step forward as it kept work going for the benefit, not only of Carillion’s employees, but also its subcontractors and supply chain.

Electrification joint venture

A couple of the projects involved were electrification programmes being carried out by the 50:50 joint venture Carillion Powerlines. Both were relatively recent contract awards.

In November 2017, a £260 million contract over three years was awarded to the joint venture to undertake electrification of the route from Bedford to Kettering and along the branch line to Corby.

In Scotland, Carillion Powerlines had previously been awarded a £49 million contract to electrify the Shotts line between Holytown junction and Midcalder junction. To be completed in 2019, this would allow electric services to run between Edinburgh and Glasgow Central via Shotts, increasing capacity between Scotland’s two major cities.

The Shotts contract was increased by a further £11.6 million on 13 December 2017, to cover enhancements to stations on the 74km route. Two stations – at Livingston South and Breich – were to be completely rebuilt and platforms were to be extended at Carfin, Shotts and West Calder, enabling the introduction of longer trains on the route. Work on the stations element of the project was due to complete in autumn 2018.

The collapse of Carillion left the other half of the joint venture with a decision to make. The Austrian-based Powerlines Group has local subsidiaries in Austria, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Norway, the Benelux states, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic and employs around 1,200 people around Europe.

Having weighed up the options, Powerlines acquired Carillion’s 50 per cent shareholding and transferred Carillion’s employees to its UK subsidiary, SPL Powerlines UK.

Gerhard Ehringer, CEO of the Powerlines Group, commented on the move: “The takeover of the shares previously owned by our former UK joint venture partner is an important milestone for Powerlines Group in general, and in particular for the sustained development and positioning of our business in the UK.

“We now intend to work very closely with our customer, Network Rail, towards the successful completion of our projects. Personally, I am especially delighted to note that this takeover will enable us to secure the jobs of our employees on a long-term basis.

“SPL Powerlines UK managed to save almost 200 jobs that were at risk as a result of the liquidation of Carillion.”

As the two teams had already been working together, integration was relatively painless. Even so, the focus during the takeover and transition was to ensure continuity of works and provide stability and commitment to Network Rail to deliver the two major projects. Indeed, the transition has only resulted in the loss of a single shift of works, highlighting the strength of project control and high levels of staff engagement and focus during this difficult time.

Martin Hawley, managing director of SPL Powerlines UK, added: “These are both challenging and exciting times and delivers SPL Powerlines as a major contractor with the UK electrification business.”

Focus on Midland main line

The electrification of the Midland main line to Kettering and its Corby branch is intended to relieve over-crowding and reduce journey times on long distance services by reducing the number of calls at outer commuter stations, stimulating long-distance demand, both now and for the future, in order to deliver increased revenues. The introduction of higher-capacity electric rolling stock on the outer commuter services will make more efficient use of the new sixth train path per hour that will be introduced as part of the December 2019 timetable.

In addition, the switch from diesel to electric traction will reduce rolling stock operating costs, improve air quality and reduce the carbon footprint of rail services on this route, whilst also delivering passenger experience and journey time benefits for passengers.

SPL Powerlines UK will deliver 56km of new overhead line equipment between Bedford and Corby. This will necessitate the installation of new and upgraded power distribution and SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) and telecommunications equipment along with signalling immunisation works.

The main contract to design, construct and commission the electrification system commenced in October 2017 and the team is now deep into the design phase, with works progressing well on site. Enabling works are being completed, along with the installation of foundations and erection of OLE (overhead line equipment) masts.

Overall, the project scope for the electrification of the Midland main line includes:

  • The installation of over 2,200 OLE foundations and masts;
  • Erection of approximately 10km of lineside fencing;
  • New troughing routes to contain 120km of new fibre optic cable and 90km of new return screen conductor cable;
  • Running 200km of contact and catenary wiring;
  • Full commissioning of the electrification system.

Despite the ‘hiccup’ caused by the Carillion liquidation, work is very much on track. As of June 2018, 584 mast foundations had been installed against a forecast of 578, 172 structures (masts) erected – exactly the number predicted – and 118 twin-track cantilevers, seven more than was planned.

Shotts line

Work has also continued in Scotland. Over Easter, the Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Central line closed for 10 days as engineers widened and extended both platforms at Livingston South.

With the tie-in already completed at the western side of the project at Holytown junction, OLE equipment was installed in the Midcalder junction area, including 36 metal stanchions and other steelwork erected and multiple cables and wires run, the installation of PES (permanent earthing sections) and current jumpers, neutral sections and switches.

The wire runs in the junction were energised to complete section proving but the lines will be blocked to electric traction until full energisation of the route takes place in October 2018.

Through hard work, and a leap of faith by the Powerlines Group main board, the failure of Carillion has not markedly delayed the two important projects on the Shotts and Midland main lines. As work continues, Rail Engineer will be back again to review both in more detail.

Read more: Derby station remodelling

 

Securing a future for one of England’s longest disused railway tunnels

A visualisation of the tunnel as a cycle path.
A visualisation of the tunnel as a cycle path.

Lost within the undulations of Britain’s varied landscape are upwards of 600 railway tunnels which were stripped of their operational status as circumstances changed. Some of these have great scale and a compelling story to tell.

By default, redundant tunnels tend to be looked upon as burdens. However, over recent years, around 60 have been rehabilitated as conduits for cycle paths – a role which fits very comfortably with today’s health and environmental responsibilities. More than 100 are owned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and looked after on its behalf by the Historical Railways Estate (HRE), part of Highways England. Queensbury Tunnel in West Yorkshire sits amongst that collection and presents the highest risk profile.

Driven by the Great Northern Railway in the mid 1870s, the tunnel was explored by a newspaper reporter a few months ahead of its opening. He asserted that “the pyramids of Egypt sink into insignificance compared with such a work”.

Hyperbole aside, the tunnel was a substantial feat by any measure. At 2,501 yards, it was the 11th longest on the railway network when traffic first passed through it and the difficulties imposed by the overwhelming influx of water caused the construction programme to overrun by two years. Use was made of an early rock drill, helping to justify its designation as a Historic Engineering Work by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Photo: Four by Three.
The larger of the two partial collapses. Photo: Four by Three.

Have your fill

Excavated through millstone grit, the tunnel’s southern approach cutting was itself an undertaking of considerable proportions, extending for more than 1,000 yards and reaching a depth of 60 feet. Post closure, this would prove a convenient dumping ground for Calderdale’s waste materials, Halifax Corporation acquiring it for that purpose in 1967.

The district engineer insisted that a ramp must be created so vehicles could enter the tunnel if needs must, but he neglected to stipulate that drainage had to be maintained. Tipping started in the seventies and it wasn’t long before floodwaters at the portal reached almost to the crown, a function of the tunnel’s 1:100 falling gradient and high levels of water ingress.

In 2009, British Railways Board (Residuary), HRE’s predecessor, commissioned its consulting engineers to undertake a feasibility study into future asset management options. It recommended abandonment of the tunnel at a cost of £5.1 million, infilling 150 metres at both ends, together with seven ventilation/construction shafts.

To fund this work, damages were sought from a developer who, in 2002, had acquired the cutting and adjacent land with the intention of building industrial units on it. The action failed – being speculative and misguided – and, going forward, proved costly in more than just a financial sense.

Photo: Four by Three.
Blown brickwork faces where the lining is being overloaded. Photo: Four by Three.

Chain reaction

Queensbury Tunnel kept the legal profession busy for four years, a settlement being finalised in 2015. To the developer’s benefit, a covenant was lifted that prevented any infilling immediately in front of the portal, whilst HRE secured a lease – the annual rent being £50 – allowing it to install pumps for dewatering purposes. These arrangements opened a ten-year window in which a long-term solution could be engineered to address risks presented by the tunnel, not least to the 70 dwellings built on or close to its centreline.

The condition of the lining is locally poor, generally at locations where adjacent coal was mined in times past. To the south of No.4 shaft, compressive stress is causing the brick faces to blow in longitudinal strips at the haunches and crown, whilst two small partial collapses occurred in 2013-14 where patches of the brickwork’s inner ring were missing. Towards the north end, eccentric loading is causing a flattening of the arch on one side and associated pushing-up of the crown.

In HRE’s view, “There is a risk, which grows daily, that one of the two known areas of collapse could unravel the tunnel lining back to one of the shafts causing a risk to properties above those shafts.” Although that’s a plausible chain of events in the longer term, there is nothing to suggest any immediate likelihood of such a failure: the nearest shafts are currently in fair condition and no major defects are recorded beneath them. The distance from the northern collapse to No.4 shaft is almost 150 metres. This is, however, the stated explanation as to why abandonment is now being actively pursued.

The southern approach cutting during a period of flood. Photo: Four by Three.
The southern approach cutting during a period of flood. Photo: Four by Three.

The same view taken during the Society's site visit in June 2016. Photo: Four by Three.
The same view taken during the Society’s site visit in June 2016. Photo: Four by Three.

Grand plan

Perched 400 feet above the tunnel, Queensbury celebrated the 150th anniversary of its named village status in 2013, boosting interest in its heritage assets including the vast Black Dyke Mills complex – birthplace of the famous brass band – and the former railway. Awareness of the tunnel’s impending demise began to grow and a campaign group was started with the aim of preserving and eventually reopening it as a shared cycle/walkway. Not unreasonably, the group expressed the view that, if a large amount of taxpayers’ money was going to be invested in the tunnel, it should deliver some tangible benefit.

But two key questions had to be addressed: how much would repair cost and who would take on its ownership, given that the proposition, if progressed, would cause friction with HRE’s terms of reference. The only logical recipient was Bradford Council – a body with bigger priorities, a squeezed budget and no regime in place to manage such a large and difficult structure.

The large influx of water from No. 2 shaft. Photo: Four by Three.
The large influx of water from No. 2 shaft. Photo: Four by Three.

Bargepoles

The task of establishing a repair cost was foisted on HRE by Robert Goodwill MP – at the time, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the DfT – who was invited to visit the tunnel by the campaign group in June 2014. The work formed part of a new report by HRE’s consulting engineers, looking principally at options for abandonment. Some of the statements and conclusions in the draft version of this report were based on questionable evidence and hence wrong; this showed up in a couple of the costings.

The preferred approach to abandonment involved backfilling the shafts but only 20 metres of tunnel at each end, the price tag being about £3 million. The repair proposal was developed through a high-level desk study, splitting the tunnel into four sections, with a generic form of remediation specified for each. Between Nos. 3 and 4 shafts, over a distance of 358 metres, the existing lining would be removed and replaced with precast concrete segments, for which a tunnelling shield would have to be procured. Much of the remainder would receive a sprayed concrete arch.

Inevitably, with 80 per cent of the tunnel still in fair condition, such broad engineering brushes brought disproportionality. The plan to reline one section came with high levels of risk and suggested a perceived need to maintain structure gauge which, obviously, was not the case with an intended reuse for cycling.

The repair cost put forward by the consultant was £35.4 million, including a 40 per cent contingency. Within HRE, although some expressed the view that this was “on the high side”, the draft report was not subjected to any formal review process – it was simply submitted for the Minister’s judgement.

HRE told the DfT that the costing offered “certainty to some degree” but that “the final estimate would only go upwards” as no provision had been made for a tarmac path, ventilation, lighting and so on. Actually these items were included – to the tune of £5.9 million – but, either way, the figure was sufficiently high for the Minister to rule out any prospect of repair. Bradford Council made it clear that it would not consider taking on a structure with such high levels of potential liabilities. Suddenly the campaign group’s goal became hopelessly distant.

The north portal's likely appearance after abandonment. Photo: Four by Three.
The north portal’s likely appearance after abandonment. Photo: Four by Three.

From the ashes

It’s at this point the story gets personal. For a couple of years, I had been helping the campaigners with back-room support – looking after their website, videos and the like. But I was then asked to consider whether an alternative approach might allow the tunnel to be repaired at a sustainable cost. There was no budget for this work; instead I had to rely on the generosity of the tunnelling fraternity, many members of which I’d met during my ten years writing for Rail Engineer. Contributions came freely from a dozen or so specialists with deep collective expertise.

HRE facilitated a brief incursion into Queensbury Tunnel in the summer of 2016, led on the campaign group’s behalf by a respected engineer and representatives from a contractor with experience of refurbishing collapsed tunnels. Our time inside was spent validating and adding to a pre-existing plan of the defects, but we were not allowed into the 125-metre section between the two partial collapses.

A pragmatic scheme was developed which specified a form of remediation for each recorded defect, adopting Network Rail Standard repairs where appropriate. The contractor put together a price and 44-week programme for the core civil engineering works, allowing an overall cost of £2.8 million to be established. It would have been about £0.5 million higher had the now-sharper picture of the tunnel’s condition been available to us at the time, but the prevailing circumstances imposed difficult constraints. A sum of £1.5 million was subsequently added for the cycle path and lighting, to allow a like-for-like evaluation against HRE’s cost.

A diverse collection of campaign supporters gathered at the north portal. Photo: Four by Three.
A diverse collection of campaign supporters gathered at the north portal. Photo: Four by Three.

Compare and contrast

The campaign group’s report – launched under the banner of the newly constituted Queensbury Tunnel Society (QTS) – fulfilled its remit, although it was weak in some areas and could reasonably be characterised as ‘cobbled together’. As we prepared for publication, I suggested to HRE that we met to discuss our report’s findings and implications. Their response could be summed up with two fingers, thus setting the tone for the two parties’ subsequent relationship.

The QTS report was despatched to the DfT in October 2016 with a plea from the Society’s leader “to prevent the destruction of this valuable asset and to ensure the money [earmarked for abandonment] is invested for public good.” No response was forthcoming, although the DfT did commission its engineering advisors to compare the report with the one produced by HRE, with whom the advisors had an exchange of emails. QTS was not contacted, as a result of which a number of errant and occasionally patronising assumptions were made.

This latest report found that HRE’s repair cost was “simply too high to be credible” and reflected an approach that was “perhaps too risk averse”. An allegation was made that the Society’s figure was “tailored to suit the previously published…cost of abandonment”, which was absolutely not the case.

Great emphasis was placed on the landownership issues at the south end of the tunnel – it was even stated that “engineering matters are…of secondary importance.” However, this unlikely observation was the function of a skewed viewpoint, not robust evidence.

Robert Goodwill MP (Second from the left) visited the tunnel in June 2014. Photo: Four by Three.
Robert Goodwill MP (Second from the left) visited the tunnel in June 2014. Photo: Four by Three.

Making the case

There could be no justification for reopening the tunnel without a solid social and economic foundation. To this end, Sustrans was asked to carry out a study – funded by HRE, alongside Bradford and Calderdale councils – into the likely health, environmental, transport and tourism impacts of a cycle network with Queensbury Tunnel as its centrepiece.

A number of options were evaluated, with the most ambitious – linking Halifax to Bradford and Keighley – forecast to deliver a £37.6 million uplift over 30 years. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) would depend, in part, on the tunnel’s repair cost; it exceeded 3:1 using the QTS figure. Even a realistic ‘worst case’ cost would deliver better than 2:1, still representing high value for money.

This report, along with that of the Queensbury Tunnel Society, dispersed the dark clouds sufficiently for Bradford Council to renew its interest in the proposal to reopen the tunnel. It recognises the potential benefits to the district and is working hard towards a positive conclusion.

Funding has been secured from HRE for an independent programme of intrusive investigations, with their cost to be deducted from a dowry which would accompany any subsequent transfer of ownership. The level of this dowry is likely to match the sum allocated to abandonment – about £3 million. Based upon the investigations, the Council will make a final decision on the viability of taking on the tunnel.

The tunnel's south portal and approach cutting, captured during construction in the late 1870s.
The tunnel’s south portal and approach cutting, captured during construction in the late 1870s.

The greater good

There are no cheap or easy solutions when it comes to Queensbury Tunnel, whichever way things go. But HRE’s failure to ever pay rent on the approach cutting – resulting in the recent termination of its lease – was a baffling, self-inflicted wound which inevitably brings more cost and difficulty. Given its previous misjudgements and their lasting negative impact, surely serious questions should now be asked of HRE.

For the record, a spokesperson for Highways England stated: “We remain fully open to the idea of transferring ownership of Queensbury Tunnel to another public body. We would also look to offer the new owner the estimated £3 million funding we would need to spend on closing the tunnel. We have been working closely with Bradford Council for some time regarding the future of the tunnel. In December 2016 we agreed to provide the Council with funds in order to carry out a feasibility study. If a transfer opportunity to another public body cannot be found, for safety reasons we must begin work on closing the tunnel in September. We have now begun the necessary planning process to allow this to happen.”

Indeed they have. In May, the Council was asked for a Screening Opinion on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment. Evidence was offered on air quality, noise, ecology and heritage, but not one word on the risk of ground settlement. The outcome is still awaited.

And what of the uncomfortable contradiction within the Department for Transport whereby one part of it invests enthusiastically in the development of new cycling infrastructure – because that’s the right thing to do – whilst another funds the self-destruction of a structure which could link the evolving cycle networks in Calderdale, Airedale and Bradford? Surely the socially responsible approach would be for the DfT to see beyond its own narrow interests and work in partnership with Bradford Council, driving the proposal forward until an outcome emerges that everyone can buy into.

Yes, this is just a grotty old tunnel: it’s hard to get excited about it if you only see in three dimensions. But times are changing and our outlook has to reflect that. The possible abandonment of Queensbury Tunnel says much about our strategic vision and commitment to sustainable forms of transport. In that context, the tunnel is an opportunity. The culture needs to evolve from one focused sharply on risk aversion into something more positive, enlightened and holistic.

Read more: Rhondda Tunnel detailed examination

 

New operator and development partner for Wales and Borders

On 23 May it was announced that KeolisAmey had won the £5 billion contract to run the Wales and Borders rail franchise over the next 15 years as the Operator and Development Partner (ODP) – a new kind of combined operator and infrastructure manager.

At the start of the bidding process, which started two years ago, there were four contenders. Arriva Trains Wales – the incumbent operator, MTR working with BAM Nuttall, Abellio working with Carillion and KeolisAmey – a joint venture between Spanish-owned Amey and French operator Keolis.

In October last year, Arriva withdrew, while the Abellio bid ended with the demise of Carillion.

No further details were announced in May as the process required a ten-day ‘cooling off’ period to allow the remaining contender the opportunity to challenge the decision. A challenge has not been forthcoming and so the Welsh Government’s arm’s length transport company, Transport for Wales, was able to exchange contracts. The current contract operated by German-owned Arriva Trains Wales, will end on 14 October this year.

The KeolisAmey partnership already holds rail contracts for London’s Docklands Light Railway and Manchester’s Metrolink tram network.

Moves and jobs

Following award of the contract, Keolis UK has announced it will move its headquarters from London to a new office in Wales by 2019, and will relocate its global rail division from Paris to Wales by 2020.

Meanwhile, Amey will open a new design hub in Wales where it will offer consultancy services and further jobs will be created when the companies open a shared services and customer contact centre providing services to the KeolisAmey businesses.

These jobs are in addition to 600 jobs and 30 apprenticeships a year announced earlier this week.

Major benefits of the new Wales and Borders rail contract include:

  • £1.9 billion will be invested in improving passengers’ travel experience, including an £800 million investment in trains, boosting overall service capacity by 65 per cent;
  • All trains will be replaced by 2023 when 95 per cent of journeys will be on brand new trains, half of which will be assembled in Wales;
  • £194 million will be invested to modernise all 247 stations and build four new stations: Gabalfa, Crwys Road, Loudoun Square and the Flourish;
  • Stations will be powered 100 per cent by renewable energy, at least 50 per cent of which will be sourced in Wales.
  • Investment in active travel initiatives will include the installation of new cycle lockers and a target to achieve Secure Station accreditation for all stations.

Passengers will start to see improvements in service levels from December 2018, with increased capacity on the valleys lines and new services between Chester and Liverpool.

By the end of 2023, passengers will be able to take advantage of an additional 285 services each weekday across Wales (a 29 per cent increase). This will include improvements to the Ebbw Vale and Wrexham-Bidston lines as well as the Cambrian and Heart of Wales lines.

Sunday services will be boosted by 61 per cent with an additional 294 services across Wales, creating a true seven-days-a-week service.

Smart ticketing will ensure that fares are more flexible and cheaper off-peak fares will be introduced including fare reductions in North Wales and at approximately 50 per cent of stations in the valleys.

Greater capacity and improved services will also help to maximise the economic development opportunities provided by the new service, enabling people to take advantage of more and better employment opportunities.

New trains to come

77 new diesel multiple units will be built by Spanish firm CAF at the Celtic Business Park in Newport. Configured as 44 two-car units and 33 three-car units, they will be in traffic by 2022 and will be based on CAF’s Civity platform. They will release the current fleet of Class 175 DMUs which operate the longer-haul services – many of which serve English stations.

Stadler are also to supply seven three-car and 17 four-car tri-mode units on the Valley lines from Cardiff. These will be able to operate on diesel, overhead electrification and battery power.

In addition, Vivarail has been chosen to supply five three-car Class 230 D-Trains. These battery/diesel hybrids will be the first new trains to come into service as part of the new franchise when they are introduced in summer 2019. They will include universal access toilets, Wi-Fi, air conditioning, USB ports and plug sockets as well as bike and luggage space.

Vivarail was formed by Adrian Shooter in 2013 to buy and upcycle London Underground D-stock into Class 230s for use as local commuter-type trains. It has already secured a deal with West Midlands Trains to supply three new D-Trains for use on the Marston Vale line between Bedford and Bletchley.

Welsh transport secretary Ken Skates has announced that nearly £100 million will be invested in a new Transport for Wales (TfW) train depot for the South Wales Metro.

This depot will be used to house and service 36 new metro vehicles operating on the Taff Vale lines.

Around 400 train crew, 35 metro vehicle maintenance staff and a South Wales Metro integrated control centre employing 52 staff will be based at the depot.

Clearance and construction work for the new depot is expected to start in 2019 and be completed by the middle of 2022.

An existing South Wales depot at Canton will also benefit from a £5 million investment to modernise maintenance facilities so it can support new tri-mode rolling stock being introduced as part of the new service.

There will also be investment in enhanced stabling facilities in Treherbert and Rhymney, and an upgrade of the station at Rhymney to accommodate more and longer tri-mode rolling stock.

Read more: London Underground Deep Tube Upgrade

 

1...151152153...291Page 152 of 291