Last year (issue 157, November 2017), Rail Engineer contained an article with a very similar title covering tests using additional sanders and variable-rate discharge sand valves on two Class 387 EMUs at RIDC Melton. The article was upbeat, describing a multi-disciplinary, multi-company team of people working well together delivering useful tests with promising results.
This is the follow up – the “now the truth can be told” article – and the news is good. It’s sufficient to say that there was a strong requirement to understand sanding better and this series of tests was important. The results and challenges faced by the project team was the subject of a session in early February 2018 hosted by RSSB.
The objective:
The objective was to establish whether the use of either more sanders and/or variable-rate delivery sanders could deliver or contribute to delivering a reliable brake rate of 6%g (0.6m/s2) in challenging adhesion conditions. If this rate could be achieved consistently, it would deliver the objective of predictable, seasonally agnostic braking, thus enabling year-round “services timed and delivered to the second”, and consistent and safe “running of trains closer together”. Both quoted statements are from the Rail Technical Strategy Capability Delivery Plan and are prerequisites of capacity improvement. There would also be safety and economic benefit.
Figure 1: Location of original and additional sander positions.
The tests:
The following tests were carried out (sander locations illustrated in figure 1):
Establishing benchmark performance applying step-3 brake (9%g demand) where low adhesion conditions were created with a coefficient of friction (µ) down to 0.02 – a figure which, although extremely low, is encountered by most TOCs several times a day during the autumn;
Performance of a standard Class 387 unit with axle-3 sanders – the standard configuration;
Performance of eight-car train of two Class 387 units with both units’ axle-3 sanders enabled;
Test of fixed rate sanders on axle 3 and on axle 7 or 11 on a four-car set;
Test of variable rate sanders on axle 3 and axles 7 or 11 on a four-car set.
The fixed rate sanders dispense sand at the rate of 2kg/min with a cut off at 10mph. Variable-rate sanders dispense sand at the rate of 4kg/min down to 20mph and then ramp down to comply with the 7.5g/metre requirement, as illustrated in figure 2.
Figure 2: Sand discharge and sand laying rates for fixed and variable rate sanders.
Both types comply with current standards, which were originally established to ensure train detection when operating over legacy low voltage DC track circuits.
The previous article described the testing process, which involved laying 96km of paper tape on the 1km low adhesion section, and running over 225 tests, of which 147 were sanded and 78 un-sanded. The brake cylinder pressures and axle speeds were monitored for all 16 (four-car) or 32 (eight-car) axles, as were train speed, doppler radar (for measuring speed independent of wheel speed), longitudinal acceleration and sander pressure. Video recordings were made of axle-3 sanders.
Figure 3: Adhesion per axle with fixed and variable sanding – average test results.
The results:
The results were presented in impressive detail and the highlights are summarised here.
Fig 3 shows how mean adhesion at each axle varies with each configuration of sanders against the base, no-sanding, low-adhesion condition. The result for three cases are described; no sand (black line), fixed-rate sanding on axles 3 and 7 (solid red line) and variable-rate sanding on axles 3 and 7 (dashed red line).
The average result for un-sanded tests shows µ for axles 1 and 2 of 0.03 (the same value for all configurations as axles 1 and 2 are not sanded) rising fairly smoothly to >0.04 at the back of the train. For the fixed-rate sanders, µ increases to 0.07 before falling back to 0.055 at axle 6.
The additional sand at axle 7 delivers µ of 0.09, which gently decays to a value of 0.065 for axle 16.
For variable-rate sanders at axles 3 and 7, µ increases to 0.085 at axle 3 and remains above 0.08 until axle 15.
The other cases not described in detail cover single axle-3 sanders (green lines – solid for fixed rate and dashed for variable rate) and sanders on axles 3 and 11 (blue lines – solid for fixed rate and dashed for variable rate).
Figure 4: Stopping distance vs initial reference adhesion – single sander, fixed and variable-rate.
Figures 4 and 5 show the benefit of the increased adhesion in reduced stopping distance. The diagram shows stopping distance against initial reference adhesion for no sand (black diamond) single fixed-rate sander (green circle) and single variable-rate sander (green triangle). This shows that a useful benefit is delivered by changing single axle fixed-rate sanders to variable rate.
Dual variable-rate sanders (purple triangles) can deliver quite consistent stopping distances that are very close to the values that would be obtained on dry rail (horizontal dashes). The near-horizontal purple line was a very pleasant surprise to most people involved in adhesion management. They had been expecting a result closer to the green lines of figure 4.
All these results are for the 4-car Class 387 unit. Of course, many shorter trains run on the network, and the results for shorter trains were estimated. Assuming standard practice was to be adopted, that there will be at least six axles behind the last sander in order to manage the risk of failure to operate track circuits, likely configurations would be variable-rate sanders on axle 3 for a two-car unit and on axles 3 and 7 for a three-car unit. There was confidence that a three-car train would deliver results consistent with the four-car unit, but more work would be necessary to have the same confidence for the two-car unit.
Does this answer the exam question?
A resounding yes! For the four-car tests, with two variable rate sanders on axles 3 and 7, a deceleration rate of 6%g was consistently delivered in challenging adhesion conditions. This is clearly illustrated in figure 6, showing the incremental benefit of various sanding configurations when a step-3 full service brake is applied at 55mph with the initial reference adhesion of 0.02. Note, the un-sanded stopping distance of >1,200 metres is estimated as the low-adhesion test section was 1,000 metres long.
The project team concluded that dual variable-rate sanders could be implemented today for three-car, four-car and longer trains, whereas some further thinking is required for two-car units.
Would dual variable rate sanders use more sand? It was estimated that each axle’s variable-rate sanders would use no more sand than a single fixed-rate sander, so sand boxes would not need filling any more frequently, albeit there would be twice as many to fill.
The benefits
The objective of demonstrating that 6%g braking can be consistently delivered has been achieved. For today’s railway, the findings suggest that SPADS and platform overruns caused by low adhesion could be reduced by over 90 per cent. For improving the railway of the future, this work provides important capabilities in order to move to a railway where services are timed to the second and trains run closer together.
Neil Ovenden of the Rail Delivery Group, and chair of the Adhesion Research Group, described this work as “the biggest advance in seasonal adhesion management in the last 20 years”, adding “we have finally quantified differences between, and benefit of, four different sanding configurations.”
The project can be declared a complete success and is a great tribute to the industry and all the hard work of everyone involved for pulling off such a complex programme. The next steps are to implement the results with pace and passion – a significant challenge in itself.
Implementing Dual Variable-Rate Sanders
The results of the dual and variable-rate sander tests are truly spectacular. However they will have no value unless implemented on the UK’s large passenger fleet. There will be in the order of 5000 individual units (2 – 11 cars) to modify, including a large number of new vehicles on order. This is a big challenge to the industry.
What has to be done? Based entirely on the author’s experience, at least the following tasks are required for each main class:
Business cases to be developed and agreed, together with securing funds where the medium to long term business case is good but where the short term case is poor (for example towards the end of a franchise);
Conclude the ideal configuration for two-car and units longer than four-cars (5,7,9,11);
Confirm that the ideal configuration for a four-car unit is appropriate for eight-car and 12-car trains composed of four-car units;
For some trains WSP (wheel-slip prevention) will need to be fitted;
Sanding and WSP suppliers will need to develop hardware (such as variable-rate valves) and software to control the sanders differently from today, followed by testing and validation;
System and application safety/assurance cases/technical files will need to be modified and assessed and, if the change is classed as significant, authorised by the regulator;
Change orders will need to be negotiated and contractors appointed;
Depots will need to be modified to handle more sanders and will probably need to store more sand.
Rail Engineer looks forward to reporting progress.
Thanks to Claire Grewer, Steve Mills and Paul Gray of RSSB, Liam Purcell – Ricardo Rail, Andrew Lightoller – DB ESG Rail, and Neil Ovenden – Rail Delivery Group.
Amongst all of the other resignalling schemes that are underway at present – Cardiff, Bristol, North Wales, Derby, Norwich Yarmouth Lowestoft, Waterloo, Birmingham and Cornwall amongst others – there is one that is often overlooked.
Siemens Rail Automation was awarded a contract by Network Rail for the Victoria 2: Sutton to Wimbledon resignalling project in August 2016. The project called for the decommissioning of life-expired relay interlocking systems at Sutton, Mitcham Junction and Wimbledon, and for them to be replaced by two new Siemens Trackguard Westlock computer-based interlockings, at Sutton and Wimbledon.
All the signalling equipment between Sutton and Mitcham Junction was to be completely renewed, with signalling control being moved from a conventional NX panel at Victoria Area Signalling Centre to a Siemens Controlguide Westcad control desk at Three Bridges Rail Operating Centre (ROC).
The project also included the complete renewal of the CCTV level crossing at Mitcham Eastfields with axle counters replacing all conventional track circuits for train detection.
Enhanced negative bonding
As part of this project, Siemens asked AM1 Projects to carry out the design, installation and commissioning of the enhanced negative bonding that would be required. AM1 Projects, based in Chatham, Kent, had previously undertaken similar projects in Control Period 5 for Network Rail on the East Sussex, Poole to Wool and Victoria Area Phase 2a Re-signalling Schemes (Streatham).
Conversion of signalling track circuits to axle counters requires the existing traction negative bonding to be changed to enhanced negative bonding in accordance with CRE (conductor rail equipment) work instructions. Using the signalling scheme plans, AM1 Projects designed the enhanced negative bonding for the different areas of the scheme in house.
As much of the bonding as possible was installed in advance in preparation for the conversion to axle counters over the 2018 Easter weekend commissioning. This included renewal of DC negative feeders at substations and TP (track paralleling) huts.
During the commissioning weekend, AM1 Projects permanently connected the new enhanced bonding and recovered redundant impedance bonds and cables.
E&P Work
Some of the traction locations on the scheme were classified as ‘hot sites’. This was nothing new, as AM1 Projects had previously provided design and construct solutions for ‘hot sites’ throughout the South East of England for Network Rail Route Maintenance and Investment Projects, having worked at over 20 substations over the past three years.
Sutton substation, a critical location for the scheme, was a classified ‘hot site’ and AM1 Projects was contracted to design and build a solution to declassify the site, enabling the access restrictions at the location to be lifted.
The chosen solution used earth interlinks between the 11kV and 33kV substation buildings. Existing earth legs were refurbished and several new earth legs installed in a no-nonsense solution that resolved immediate traction location earthing issues. This enabled Sutton substation to be declared a cold site and access restrictions were lifted, allowing work to be carried out within the substation and surrounding area.
AM1 Projects was also contracted to design and renew the point heating trackside components at various points on the scheme and to carry out the conductor rail alterations that would allow the new signalling equipment to be located.
Winchfield substation
A little further out from London, at Winchfield station in Hampshire on the line between Waterloo and Basingstoke, a DC contactor failed, causing damage to the adjacent DC switchboard. As a result, train services were disrupted, so Network Rail instructed AM1 Projects to design, install and commission two new DC Modules into service at Winchfield substation on a tight timetable.
With the challenging timescales, the new DC modules had to be located near the existing substation. With extremely limited space available, AM1 Projects designed the layout and configuration of the DC modules, concrete module bases and DC and LV cable routes to suit these location restraints and enable construction to start.
DC cables and switchgear
AM1 Projects was instructed to double-up the DC track feeder cables for the four-track layout and designed the routeing through tracks using cable management sleepers.
The four DC interconnector cables from the original Bournemouth Electrification 2MW H&H traction rectifier set had been damaged beyond repair when the DC contactor failed. To enable connection of six new 1,000sq mm aluminium cables to the existing rectifier output busbar, AM1 Projects proposed the use of 500sq mm copper LUL cable and lugs, working with suppliers to produce bespoke size-reducer connectors and busbar lugs to enable this interface, which Network Rail approved.
Network Rail provided two DC Modules and AM1 Projects re-configured the DC busbar to enable connection of the supply from the existing rectifier to the eight electrical sections.
A new DC interface marshalling cabinet was installed, to enable connection from the new DC modules to the existing GEC supervisory control equipment and HV switchgear, and the existing LV supplies were also modified to enable LV supply to the new DC modules.
Construction and commissioning
The site was cleared and concrete bases and cable routes constructed in time for delivery of the two DC Modules in an abnormal possession. AM1 Projects delivered the modules to Winchfield and used a Kirow crane to manoeuvre the 11-tonne modules into position.
With four weeks to go, connection of the DC modules commenced in preparation for the commissioning of the DC switchgear and cables during a 52-hour possession.
AM1 Projects had pre-commissioned the DC modules at a Network Rail storage depot prior to delivery to Winchfield. High-current testing was carried out on the DC circuit breakers on site before commissioning, to ensure there would be no control or equipment problems later.
The supervisory control and protection wiring was installed and pre-commissioned with Eastleigh ECR (electrical control room) before the planned possession.
The DC track feeder cables were successfully installed and commissioned into service during the 52-hour possession, which enabled train service restrictions to be lifted after delays over just 12 weeks.
Finally, the DC interconnector cables were connected to the rectifier and DC modules after the possession and were commissioned into service once the damaged rectifier protection equipment was repaired.
Both of these projects, at Sutton and at Winchfield, benefited from the collective experiences of AM1 Projects, gained within the rail industry over many years.
The Railway Industry Association (RIA) recently held its tenth innovation conference. As ever, this was an informative event with much useful guidance for those wishing to introduce rail innovations. This year’s theme – “technology alone is not enough” – reflected the view of those present that barriers to innovation need to be effectively addressed if rail is to compete with the increasing pace of change in other industries.
Over the years Rail Engineer has reported on several promising innovations that are being progressed at a glacial pace, if at all. These include the novel REPOINT switch (September 2015), DMU flywheel energy storage (July 2014) and active pantographs (June 2015). An instant electronic poll showed only one percent considered lack of ideas to be a problem. The main issues were considered procurement not supporting innovation (56 per cent) and client risk aversion (43 per cent).
Setting the scene
The conference was a mix of presentations, panel discussions, interactive workshop sessions and elevator pitches. In addition, over twenty companies had their innovative products on display in the exhibition areas. This year, more than 250 delegates from over a hundred organisations attended over two days, and as in previous conferences, several speakers from outside the rail industry gave particularly thought-provoking presentations.
RIA’s chief executive Darren Caplan set the scene when he opened the conference. He advised that, as part of it lobbying on behalf of the industry, RIA had commissioned a report by Oxford Economics on rail’s contribution to the UK economy. This shows that the sector supports 600,000 jobs and that every pound spent on the network generates £2.20 in associated industries.
Darren felt that Government understood this and that there was a satisfactory level of current funding, although its boom and bust nature had to be addressed. He also noted that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), defined by the EU as those with under 250 staff and a turnover under €50 million, which make up 60 per cent of RIA’s membership, were particularly vulnerable to swings in government policy.
One such swing was the recent electrification cutbacks, to which RIA’s response is its electrification cost challenge, the results of which are soon to be published.
David Clarke, RIA’s technical director, made the point that technology alone is not enough. Any development has to start with a customer requirement and consider the people who will have to operate the technology. He observed that innovation can also be about survival, as Kodak and Nokia found out to their cost. For this reason, the rail industry had to be aware of the potential impact of disruptive technologies.
Whilst rail has many strengths, David noted that it is an inflexible, high-cost industry that is slow to adopt new technology. Compared to other industries, it takes longer to develop a product from conception and, once developed, it might take years before the product is adopted.
As the conference poll had shown, one way of addressing this is intelligent procurement. David suggested that more use could be made of the innovation partnership procedure in the 2014 EU public contracts directive, which uses a negotiated and staged approach to invite suppliers to submit ideas to develop innovative products. Altran’s Ken Greenwood, in his presentation on the development and demonstration with Network Rail of the Compass Degraded Mode Signalling System, provided a worked example of this process.
In her presentation, Emma Head, HS2’s corporate health, safety, security and environment director, echoed the point about technology not being enough and stressed that people were at the heart of the innovation challenge. Her presentation described how innovation is embedded in HS2’s procurement strategy.
HS2 also has an innovation hub and holds its own hackathons. She reported that a recent hack had 150 participants. Its winners had innovations for smart infrastructure that used augmented virtual reality and enabled HS2 to be a good neighbour.
Making it happen
Professor Clive Roberts had a clear message – UKRRIN is open for business. Clive is the director of the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Railway Research and Education. The UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) was established last July, when the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) agreed to its bid for £28 million to match the committed £64 million investment from 16 private companies. It is to prioritise rail innovation across the UK by developing new centres of excellence in collaboration with government, universities and organisations promoting economic development.
UKRRIN consists of innovation centres for digital systems, rolling stock and infrastructure as well as Network Rail’s testing facilities. There is also a coordination hub led by RSSB and involving RIA.
The digital system centre is at the University of Birmingham, where £16.4 million is being invested in a new 3,000 square metre building with state-of-the-art facilities for the development of solutions for operations and control, cybersecurity, data integration, smart monitoring and autonomous systems.
The University of Huddersfield is leading the rolling stock centre, supported by the Universities of Newcastle and Loughborough. Assisted by a £10 million investment, this will consider traction drivetrains, braking, structural integrity and crashworthiness, maintenance reliability and passenger interaction.
The infrastructure centre is based at the national infrastructure laboratory currently under construction at the University of Southampton and will use other facilities at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University and the Universities of Loughborough, Nottingham and Sheffield. £1.7 million is being invested to enhance these facilities.
Clive had no doubt that UKRRIN’s world-class centres of excellence would help new products and services get to market and could make the UK a global leader in rail innovation. He encouraged those with innovative ideas to engage with its centres.
The Rail Innovation and Testing Centres that form UKRRIN’s testing arm were described by Jon Shaw, Network Rail’s chief engineer. In his presentation on asset management innovation, which described the industry’s research and development programme, he described the challenge statements that Network Rail has produced to ensure potential innovators are aware of its priority areas. These include guidance on the research and development required.
In his very open presentation, Jon acknowledged the difficulties faced by suppliers that wished to introduce new ideas, one of which was product acceptance. In this respect, Jon advised that Network Rail was now processing seventy per cent of applications within forty days and that companies could now track their applications on its website. Jon also highlighted the soon-to-be-launched Network Rail standards challenge process, developed with help from RIA members.
Jon described how further guidance and support is provided by the Rail Technical Strategy (RTS) Capability Delivery Plan work package owners, many of whom gave elevator pitches at the conference and led table sessions to explain their work and seek ideas.
Outside the industry
The energy regulator Ofgem (the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) rewards innovation in the energy sector by setting the revenues earned by the networks as a function of their outputs, performance against expectations and innovations. In addition, Ofgem has a £500 million Low Carbon Network fund to support distribution projects and awards up to £70 million per year from its Network Innovation Competition.
Peter Jones, ABB’s technology strategy manager explained why this means that, in effect, companies being rewarded for not spending money. He had no doubt that the regulatory system successfully encourages innovation in the electrical supply industry and noted that ABB globally believes that “the UK system is fantastic”.
He advised that the electricity distribution system is not designed for its current role, as large power stations are no longer being built, and instead has a number of small-scale inputs, many of which are from highly variable renewable energy supplies. Hence, the national electricity grid must be measured, monitored and controlled on a minute-by-minute basis.
Peter advised that, as a result, there is a need for smarter network development, energy storage, network management and control of the demand-side response. He described innovation projects such as digital substations, solid-state circuit breakers, power flow control and system inertia as examples of Ofgem-funded innovation projects to meet these requirements.
A ‘Winds of Change’ presentation concerning offshore wind power developments was given by Finbarr Dowling, Siemens customer service director for rolling stock. He explained the huge investments that Siemens had made to support its installation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. This included a £160 million investment in Hull on a wind turbine facility, a new dock and part-funding a new university technical college, which together will create 1,100 jobs. Large sums have also been invested on specialist ships that enable 7MW 154-metre-diameter off-shore turbines to be erected within 24 hours.
Another development was the opening in 2014 of a remote diagnostic centre in Brande, Denmark, to monitor 7,500 Siemens turbines worldwide. This centre monitors 24 million turbine parameters to collect 200 Gigabytes of data each day and can fix 85 per cent of alarms remotely, significantly reducing the number of visits needed to offshore turbines and consequently the number of helicopters and ships required.
With these developments, Siemens has reduced its wind turbine generation cost from £200 MW/hr to £52 MW/hr over the past six years, making wind the cheapest form of utility-scale power generation.
Data and digital delivery
This reduction in the cost of offshore turbine generation highlights the benefits of acquiring useful information through smart data management or, as Finbarr put it, to move from big data to smart data.
With their many sensors and automated vehicle inspection, large amounts of data are now being collected from modern rail vehicles. In what he described as the industrialisation of data, the output from advanced data analytics using machine learning is analysed by experts who advise field-service experts of the action they need to take. This needs data scientists and technology experts in the data analytics teams, as well as experienced depot technicians using digital tools.
The result is the replacement of classical preventative maintenance and reactive repairs by data-driven predictive maintenance, offering guaranteed availability and 100 per cent reliability at lower cost.
However, Finbarr was clear that this could only happen through investment in people, by training and developing the existing workforce and attracting talent to the industry. To do this, Siemens has regular open days at its depots to make them open to everyone.
David Waboso, managing director of Network Rail’s digital railway programme, was also clear that people had to be at the heart of this programme if the workforce is to adopt new technologies and ways of working, especially as the digital railway does not respect the boundaries between track and train.
As Rail Engineer readers will know, the digital railway programme comprises of train separation (ETCS), train movement control (CDAS and ATO) and traffic management, all underpinned by a telecommunications network and smart infrastructure to improve performance.
This is needed to squeeze more from the existing infrastructure, which in many places is operating at capacity. David illustrated this problem with a graph that showed how, over the past nine years, the number of incidents has decreased from 27,000 to 19,000 whilst the delay per incident had increased from 27 to 37 minutes per incident, with secondary delays currently accounting for 70 per cent of the total.
The volume of signalling renewals required is currently around 1,500 signalling equivalent units (SEU) per year and will stay at this level until 2024, after which it will ramp up to 5,000 by 2028. As David explained, the cost of replacing this amount of signalling is unsustainable. Furthermore, there are not the signalling resources and engineering access to do it.
David’s presentation showed the programme’s 2018 milestones, which include Western traffic management going live in June and the Thameslink core carrying 20 trains per hour in October. Looking further into the future, he outlined the provisional integrated schedule up to 2029, when conventional signalling has to be replaced by digital.
He acknowledged that introducing such disruptive technology would be challenging and felt that delivering the digital railway needs innovative procurement and delivery. This will require early contractor involvement and outcome-based whole-of-life contracts that are aligned to the route and promoted cross-industry collaboration. Larger system contracts will also be required to facilitate risk taking and efficiency.
David’s message to take home was that successful digital delivery requires innovation in such soft issues as well as innovations in digital technology.
Getting interactive
It would be wrong to give the impression that attendance at RIA’s conference required delegates to just spend their time listening to presentations, fascinating though these were. There were also two 45-minute round-table discussions with RTS work package owners, as well as the opportunity to see what the conference exhibitors had on show.
There were also two one-hour interactive workshops with seven topics on offer: digital-ready signalling, identifying non-technical innovation enablers, digital engineer of the future, Shift2Rail supplier opportunities, unlocking innovation through procurement, the future of traction power and rail innovation – industry and academia.
This writer’s choice was digital-ready signalling and the future of traction power. The former was led by the digital railway programme’s head of technical policy and strategy Pat McFadden, who freely admitted that “we are all on a journey together”. In this spirit, he described how Network Rail’s specification NR/L2/SIG/11711 ‘Digital Railway-Ready Signalling’ had been developed as part of the programme’s early contractor involvement.
This specification ensures that future signalling works can be upgraded with minimum disruption and cost when digital railway signalling is introduced. It takes account of the likely timescale for digital railway implementation and addresses such issues as interlocking capacity, easy removal of signals (such as separating housings for signal modules and axle counters) and ease of alteration of train detection systems (making axle counters the preferred method).
Thus it delivers passive provision for the digital railway and is the signalling equivalent of specifying ETCS-ready cab equipment fitted to new trains.
Future power for trains was considered in a workshop led by David Clarke on Transport Minister Jo Johnson’s call to scrap diesel trains by 2040 to decarbonise the railway. This workshop looked at the technical, operational and environmental issues associated with fuel-saving and at traction improvements which included cost-effective electrification, hydrogen, batteries, lightweighting and improved diesels.
It gave those present a flavour of the work that RIA is doing on its electrification cost challenge, which will show how electrification costs can be reduced. It also showed there is scope to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of diesel engines by the use of alternative fuels, recovering braking energy, having donkey engines on freight locomotives and developing more efficient transmissions. However, this last suggestion provided a case study of a worthwhile innovation not being adopted.
Innovation not wanted – a case study
In the 1980s, over 2,500 Voith T211 hydrodynamic gearboxes were fitted to second-generation British DMUs such as the 15X units. These were much more reliable than gearboxes on first-generation units but at low speeds their fluid flywheels are not efficient. With fuel economy and CO2emissions now much more important, Voith was keen to show how its latest transmissions could save fuel and so, as a trial, had its DIWARail hydro-mechanical gearboxes fitted to a two-car class 158 unit operated by Arriva Trains Wales, as reported by Rail Engineer in August 2016 (issue 142).
The trial showed the DIWARail gearboxes gave fuel savings of between 10 and 16 per cent and reduced CO2emissions by up to 30 tonnes per car per year, as well as reducing gearbox maintenance costs by up to forty per cent. As a result, Voith estimates the DIWARail gearboxes would pay for themselves in about four years.
However, three years later, after almost completing the 500,000-mile overhaul cycle without a failure, there, as yet appears to be no demand for any further units to be fitted with DIWARail gearboxes. The original trial was to be for 50,000 miles.
Voith’s Dave Taylor has been involved with this trial from the start. He advised that this was done with strong collaboration from all stakeholders and involved six of his company’s divisions. He considers the DIWARail transmission to be an innovative product, and one which is fully proven. Dave is clearly frustrated that the significant amount of work put into this trial has so far come to naught, despite the obvious benefits. He feels that the industry is not culturally and commercially aligned to embrace and deliver innovation but stresses that this is not due to any one company.
The lack of demand for DIWARail transmissions after this successful trial would be a worthwhile case study for anyone wishing to understand the barriers to rail innovation and the disincentives that this presents to the supply chain.
Incentivising innovation
Is enough being done to stimulate rail innovation? The answer would seem to be no, as Dave Taylor’s view was certainly shared by many at the conference. RIA certainly can’t be faulted in this respect. By running its conference and associated Unlocking Innovation Workshops, RIA is doing much to support rail innovation. Moreover, the smooth running of such a complex conference was no mean feat.
Much good work is also being done within Network Rail, RSSB, UKRRIN and other organisations to support innovation, and it would be wrong to give the impression that the industry can’t innovate. In his presentation, Jon Shaw gave examples of successful innovations including surveying by drones, taking isolations by secure text message instead of padlocks and DIFCAM, which assesses asset condition by comparing digital images taken at different times to detect changes invisible to the eye. This was presented to the RIA innovation conference in 2013.
Panel discussions revealed further examples. A train Ethernet-backbone that was developed within four months to provide hi-definition CCTV images after a guard was attacked was one, another was a low-cost customer information system at unstaffed stations on the Cumbrian coast.
As the conference poll showed, there is no shortage of ideas for rail innovation. On some occasions, this can be done well, especially on a small scale with few organisational interfaces. However, the implementation of other innovations often stalls, especially those which, to quote David Waboso, do not respect the boundaries between track and train.
Some suggest that the industry structure is the problem, with fragmentation being an issue. Also, as mentioned in a conference panel discussion with train operating company representatives, franchises will not get a return on innovation investment unless it is introduced early in the franchise.
The challenge is to effectively incentivise innovation within the current structure to encourage collaboration between different companies and give franchises a return on innovations implemented at any time in the franchise.
In this respect there must be lessons to be learnt from the electricity supply industry where Ofgem’s regime provides the incentive to innovate. Perhaps the ORR could present their thoughts on this subject to RIA’s 2019 innovation conference.
The much-vaunted Hyperloop, sometimes described by its proponents as the ‘fifth mode of transport’, uses the premise of pods travelling through evacuated tubes to offer high-speed inter-city transport. The concept was first attributed to US-based technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, and independent backers are popping up across the globe, amid huge amounts of publicity.
On paper, the concept is a clever one, extrapolating Newton’s First Law to remove as much air resistance as possible to reduce the required motive force to achieve the desired speeds. The technology itself is not revolutionary, simply comprising a pod elevated and driven forwards by magnetic levitation in a tube pumped to a near vacuum.
Some progress has been made by the various competing Hyperloop developers. Virgin Hyperloop One, for example, has built a 500 m ‘DevLoop’ test ring in the Nevada desert, where it has demonstrated the technological union of maglev and vacuum tube. Acceleration, top speed, the pressurised cabin environment and associated emergency arrangements are all very similar to those utilised in commercial air travel. But, for all the attention lavished upon Hyperloop, there are fundamental problems that must be overcome before any commercial application is realistic.
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies.
Straight, underground
Steel-wheel high-speed rail can have a design speed of up to 400km/h (250mph), and it is common for curves to be 10km or more in radius. Whilst Hyperloop will probably permit tighter curves than a railway, it aspires to a design speed of up to 1,100km/h (690mph).
As with conventional railway alignments, Hyperloop will rotate the plane of its guideway as curvature increases to reduce the forces on passengers. Yet it seems unlikely that a guideway could be tilted enough to avoid a near-straight alignment, with inertial forces on passengers being comparable to those in a jet aircraft. This, in turn, is likely to mean the tubes would be underground in most applications.
Switches pose another huge technological hurdle. One solution includes relying solely on the guidance of the linear motors for switching – at 1,100km/h the consequences of a failure would be catastrophic and creating a successful safety case would be difficult.
Another option would involve the mechanical shifting of vacuum tube segments to create a continuous through or turnout route. However, for a switch that would be around 1,000 metres long, managing detection and the interface with the control system, all whilst maintaining a vacuum, would be immensely challenging.
The vacuum tube concept also throws up some technical gremlins. Thermal expansion effects on the tubes can be managed by using materials with a reduced thermal expansion coefficient and by constructing expansion joints between each tube segment. However, these expansion joints would have to be strong enough to withstand the pressures from the vacuum within, increasing their cost greatly.
In an emergency, or in the case of a pump failure, the tube would have to be returned to atmospheric pressure: all this requires is a valve controlling the ingress of air. The problems start when the vacuum needs to be restored. With regular airlocks, you could not run a pod at speed from a vacuum into a section at atmospheric pressure. At 1,100km/h, this would be akin to driving a car into a concrete block.
But, if pods have to sit and wait for the correct pressure conditions to be achieved mid-service, delays could be considerable: the Hyperloop One test tube needs four hours to return to a vacuum over a 500-metre alignment. Undoubtedly there will be more powerful pumps in any commercial specification, but this is still technology requiring radical development.
TransPod.
Energy and capacity
Japan’s Chuo Shinkansen maglev is likely to use approximately three times more energy per seat than steel-wheel high-speed rail. While Hyperloop’s vacuum tubes will remove almost all aerodynamic friction, reducing the motive power needed to reach and sustain high speed, the self-same lack of aerodynamic drag will increase the power required to slow the pods down.
On top of this, the likely power consumption of the pumps maintaining the vacuum conditions must be considered.
Yet it is passenger capacity that is arguably the most fundamental challenge. Using the UK’s planned High Speed 2 as a benchmark, high-speed rail capacity can be nearly 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, assuming 18 trains/hour, each with 1,100 seats, over a double-track alignment.
If a Hyperloop pod had 50 seats, for example, then 400 pods would need to depart every hour at a nine-second headway to match HS2’s capacity. Assuming the same number of seconds to alight from a Hyperloop pod as a train, 23 tubes would be needed to match HS2’s throughput.
None of this is to dismiss entirely Hyperloop’s prospects. Indeed, the eager and exceptional minds in organisations like VHO will doubtless continue their quest for answers. But no-one should yet claim that Hyperloop could replace steel-wheel rail, which is far from the outdated mode some would assert.
For the foreseeable future, Hyperloop is likely to remain a technological experiment meriting private backing, rather than public funding.
Gareth Dennis, a senior permanent way engineer for an international design consultancy, leads the local section of the Permanent Way Institution and is a lecturer on track systems at the National College for High Speed Rail. A version of this article first appeared in Railway Gazette International, reproduced here with permission.
While not an obligation, it’s fundamental for us to have a third-party looking in at our sustainability process and practice.” This February, HS2 Ltd pocketed a BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme Certificate for Phase 1, London to the West Midlands, and became the UK’s first infrastructure project to receive this independent stamp of approval.
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) was introduced by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 1990 and is the world’s longest established method of assessing the sustainability of buildings. A similar scheme for infrastructure is CEEQUAL, which was established by the Institution of Civil Engineers.
To find out more about HS2’s ‘ambitious sustainability strategy’ and the significance of this accreditation, Rail Engineer caught up with Peter Miller, HS2 environment director, and Chris Broadbent, director CEEQUAL and BREEAM Infrastructure at BRE, the organisation behind BREEAM.
“Introduced in 2015, the BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme Certificate came about following use of BREEAM for venues for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games,” Chris Broadbent explained.
“After the Games, several people from industry approached us, including consultants working with HS2 at that stage, about the possibility of extending this BREEAM thinking to infrastructure. So, in 2013, I set up and led the team developing the BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme, which we then launched in 2015.”
BREEAM assesses and certifies the sustainability performance of individual buildings, communities and infrastructure projects at a number of stages in the built environment life cycle – from design and construction through to operation and refurbishment.
Peter Miller continued: “Achieving this certification for Phase 1 gains us credibility from a well-recognised organisation that challenges industry. It reassures the public and stakeholders that we are going about sustainability in the right way. Underpinning the work we are doing, it provides reassurance that HS2 is working well for the public purse.”
“HS2 has really set out its stall in a good way for sustainability,” added Chris Broadbent. “Following this, there will be an assessment for the design phase, and finally for the build.”
Ratings to push boundaries
BREEAM Infrastructure addresses carbon issues and resource management, as well as the wider range of sustainability categories such as resilience, stakeholder engagement, pollution, ecology and heritage. As Chris Broadbent stated: “Our aim is to give a balanced outcome and provide a framework to manage sustainability across all of these aspects.”
Each of these categories addresses the most influential sustainability factors, including low-impact design and carbon emissions reduction, design durability and resilience; adaption to climate change; ecological value and biodiversity protection.
Projects seeking to obtain the Infrastructure certification gain credits in the respective categories, scoring higher in some perhaps and lower in others, depending on their particular focus. “But adding up all the scores, the scheme gives a balanced result for a project’s sustainability across the board.”
With a five-tier rating system ranging from Pass – Good – Very Good – Excellent – Outstanding, the certificate seeks to push participating projects beyond mandatory requirements to prove they are pushing the boundaries. So, while achieving a Pass suggests ‘just over the basic minimum’, anything higher confirms they are doing far more. If the assessment awarded is Excellent, for instance, this probably means the project has scored well in all the different categories.
“We have only completed the strategic assessment at this point and scored 32 out of the available 41 credits,” said Peter Miller. “This puts us in the right place to achieve the BREEAM excellence we have committed to.”
Around 100 people at HS2 supported the project’s BREEAM manager who led on the assessment. They included technical specialists whose expertise includes areas such as carbon, heritage, waste, biodiversity, and noise, supported by the wider environmental management team across the three delivery Phases.
In addition, there are other individuals across the organisation dealing with social sustainability, including equality; diversity, inclusion and skills; education and employment.
“As this infrastructure scheme is currently in pilot, there was a lot more engagement with BRE to discuss technical queries and how we should apply it and their process to a project the size of HS2 – with multiple contracts such as enabling works, main works, civils – than you would typically have with a standard BREEAM assessment for buildings,” Peter Miller pointed out.
From words to action – sustainability in the field
HS2’s stated ambition is “to build the most sustainable high-speed railway of its kind in the world”. With this bold goal in mind, it has divided the task into five themes:
Spreading the benefits: economic growth and community regeneration;
Opportunities for all: skills, employment and education;
Safe at heart: health, safety and well-being;
Respecting our surroundings: environmental protection and management;
Standing the test of time: design that is future-proof.
Engaging with local communities is an important part of the plan, Peter Miller insisted. But what does this mean in practice? Well, there’s the £40 million HS2 Phase 1 Community and Environment Fund, established to support projects along the Phase 1 route through refurbishing community centres, nature conservation, and measures to support jobs and local economies.
“It’s about enabling local communities to be sustainable in their own right,” said Peter Miller. “Groups can bid for a piece of this funding to get something done for their community. Like the recent award for Wendover Woods.”
Woodland
On 8 March 2018, HS2 Minister Nusrat Ghani announced a £450,000 grant for the Wendover Woods Recreational Development project near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The award will fund plans for a new woodland hub with an adventure trail, café and parking for 600 visitors.
“This scheme, which will be delivered by Forestry Enterprise England, will include flat surfaces so older and mobility impaired people can access and benefit from the venue,” Peter Miller explained. “Plus, visitors will be able to walk there from the local railway station and electric charging points will also encourage more sustainable transport services to the site.”
To deliver a “bigger and better” ecological impact, HS2 is also linking up its mitigation plans with existing ecological sites wherever possible. In the Cubbington area, Warwickshire, for instance, remnants of ancient woodland will be linked to provide a bigger woodland habitat for wildlife. Extending to the River Leam, where HS2 will be on viaduct, this space will enable wildlife to roam freely through the landscape and pass safely beneath the high-speed track.
“We can’t deny the project will have impacts, but if we go about sustainability in the right way, the outcome for the future will be positive,” Peter Miller added. “For example, given the awful lot of woodland involved in the project, around 650 hectares, our plan will deliver a Green Corridor along the rail route.”
Water
Treating water properly also features in HS2’s strategy. At Park Hall Nature Reserve outside Birmingham, the project is changing the nature of the River Tame to realise a more natural course.
“Yes, these works will be disruptive in the first instance,” Peter Miller acknowledged, “but, over time, they will deliver a greater ecological outcome, providing flood relief and improving access for local people. This is a great example of how the new railway can deliver local benefits as well as meeting the country’s wider transport objectives.”
Positive integration of structures
To mitigate the impact of the 3.4km-long Colne Valley viaduct, one of the biggest structures on the Phase 1 route, HS2 says a lot of work has gone into creating a structure that fits in with the landscape and minimises impact on the surrounding environment (issue 160, February 2018).
“Innovative ideas include additional elements such as transparent noise-reduction barriers with vertical lines that are visible to bats and wildfowl to reduce possible impacts, whilst creating a slimmer side profile of the viaduct,” said Jim Barclay, chair of the Colne Valley Regional Park Panel.
Counting the gains
Public acceptance, stakeholder confidence and balancing cost and life cycle value are among the benefits of a BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot) Scheme. Having such a solid strategy in place can also deliver gains further down the line. While there may be additional capital cost to infrastructure meeting the BREEAM standard, this cost needs to be seen in the context of the overall life cycle value that sustainable development can deliver.
“Yes, of course there’s the economic aspect too,” Peter Miller agreed. “Cost efficiencies can be generated through actions such as using resources more efficiently, selecting appropriate materials, and avoiding waste. Take the provision of lights as an example. In the past we had heat inefficient light bulbs. Today we have LED. Today we have passive heating systems. We have built these kinds of sustainable processes and outcomes into our thinking.”
Chris Broadbent pointed out how many BREEAM users also see the scheme as a useful management tool that prompts questions about their sustainability approach and even opens up avenues to do things in other ways. To reduce the carbon impact, for example, they might use a different concrete mix, dispense with concrete altogether, or adopt a completely different approach to the build. Rail Engineer asked Peter Miller whether this was the case for HS2?
“At the same time as undertaking our BREEAM strategic assessment, we were writing our requirements for our Phase 1 contractors,” he replied. “We used BREEAM to inform the requirements and identified some additional credits we expected our contractors to achieve over and above the minimum requirements. For instance, we have mandated the need for a carbon and energy strategy, when this is an optional credit in BREEAM Infrastructure.
“Our sustainability strategy will broadly stay the same, our carbon objective, for one, accords with Government’s aspirations for near zero emissions by 2050. Our plan is to get on a pathway now that shows how HS2 will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that will require innovation through design and construction and careful thought about the energy use during operation.
“That’s the benefit of BREEAM; it helps frame the sustainable outcome. But recognising how we do that will be determined through flexible practice, effective design and innovation.”
Driving forces and the bigger picture
There is a focus on carbon in the infrastructure sector, particularly following the ‘Infrastructure Carbon Review’ (ICR) report produced by HM Treasury in 2013. Confirming the link between reducing carbon and reducing cost, it focuses on the value of lower carbon solutions to make carbon reduction part of the DNA of infrastructure in the UK.
Chris Broadbent believes its recommendations have since helped drive up industry awareness of the importance of taking sustainability matters fully on board. “One of them resulted in the development of PAS 2080 as a standard to help projects and organisations establish a common understanding, approach, and language for whole life carbon management in infrastructure.
“The BREEAM scheme is part of a credible package we are creating around our commitments to sustainability, which also includes ISO 14001:2015 – environmental management systems certification for Phase 1,” Peter Miller stated. “With such a huge build, we have many contractors designing and this certification, very much an industry standard, will serve to reinforce our sustainability message to them when civil engineering work kicks off in 2019. It also helps to point to processes and practices in the supply chain.”
Yes, HS2’s commitment to all matters sustainable appears to delve deep and wide. Motivating the supply chain is very much part of the package. Here one goal is to ensure compliance with the Euro 6 engine emission standard for the fleets of construction vehicles in order to generate less air pollution (NOX particles and CO2).
“It’s a game-changing moment because we have big buying power that will influence the construction industry, so this kind of benefit will change the way we do things that will benefit others in the years to come,” Peter Miller told Rail Engineer. “The kit and equipment from plants will most likely be used on other projects after HS2. We must be seen to be doing the right thing and lead by example.”
Joining forces
BREEAM isn’t the only independent ratings body on the block. The CEEQUAL scheme has also been influential over the years in shaping the sustainability agenda and outcomes for many infrastructure projects. Its CEEQUAL methodology has been applied to – and positively influenced – some of the UK’s most successful infrastructure projects including Crossrail and the London 2012 Olympics.
In response to the introduction of BREEAM Infrastructure (pilot), industry expressed its interest in having a single scheme, rather than two separate bodies running two in parallel. “This led to the idea of merging the CEEQUAL and BREEAM infrastructure schemes, and our acquisition of CEEQUAL in November 2015,” Chris Broadbent explained.
Following this move, CEEQUAL (2018) is set to launch (later this year) as the sole successor. BRE chief executive Peter Bonfield commented: “Our long-term aspiration with a single scheme is to bring together the significant experience and expertise behind the two rating systems to deliver enhanced environmental and social benefits for civil engineering works and better economic outcomes that benefit society, and broaden up-take in the UK and international markets.”
Walking the talk
As far as HS2 is concerned, gaining accreditation for its sustainability strategy is setting the project up for even more scrutiny (if possible) over the coming years. Henceforth, all eyes will be riveted on the team to see if they deliver the promised goods. It’s just as well they anticipated this development.
“HS2 was thinking about sustainability from the outset, back in 2013, and this is important,” said Chris Broadbent. “The earlier you engage, the better the outcome. If you try to add on sustainability when the designs have been finalised, it’s usually too late.”
“We can’t pay lip service to sustainability but have to strike the right balance between the environmental and social costs and benefits,” Peter Miller summed up. “Since HS2 is publicly underwritten, it’s vital we spend the money in the right way. You don’t get an Act of Parliament approved these days without adopting this kind of sustainable approach.”
Infrastructure Carbon Review
The Infrastructure Carbon Review sets out a series of actions for government, clients and suppliers to reduce carbon from the construction and operation of the UK’s infrastructure assets, in line with the UK’s climate change commitments. The recommendations have the potential to reduce up to 24 million tonnes of carbon and save the UK £1.46 billion a year by 2050.
The Review is developed jointly by government and industry though the Infrastructure Cost Review and Green Construction Board. Published on 25 November 2013, it was signed by government ministers Lord Deighton and Michael Fallon and by representatives of the following organisations:
For the rail industry, how to replace the ageing GSM-R radio networks is an ever-present challenge. Thoughts over the past ten years have progressed from 3G to 4G LTE but increasingly nowadays to the prospect of the soon to emerge 5G technology. With its huge increase in data capacity, a 5G rail network should be able to meet all rail usage requirements including operational, commercial and passenger communication needs.
A paper given to the IRSE back in December 2017 jointly by Rail Engineer writers Clive Kessell and Paul Darlington looked at the options for replacing GSM-R and concluded that 5G was likely to be the solution when GSM-R obsolescence becomes a real problem in the mid-2020s.
But just how far off is a general roll out of 5G networks? A recent seminar held in London organised and hosted by Cambridge Wireless explored the present position from three different perspectives:
A mobile operator’s view;
The emerging business models and trends;
An equipment provider’s view.
From these emerged some surprising elements and it is clear that a number of conflicts of interest remain to be resolved before, and indeed if, a united view can be agreed as to how 5G should be structured.
The seminar focussed primarily on the forthcoming 5G public networks, and there was little mention of ‘mission critical’ services on which the railway and other industries such as the armed forces, the emergency services, nuclear power generation, essential utilities and others would need to be reassured. Nonetheless, the challenges within the public offering will have a bearing on how mission-critical services are structured if 5G is to be the technology of choice.
5G vision and characteristics
The advent of 5G goes hand in hand with IT developments that require reliable and high bandwidth connectivity. Foremost of these is the Internet of Things (IoT), but also the insatiable demand from the user community for ever-more applications to be available to end user devices. These culminate in a system that aims to provide i) between 10 and 100 times more connected devices, ii) 1000 times more data volumes, iii) up to 100 times end user data rates. Connectivity of 10Gbit to end devices is a possibility.
To fulfil this, the vision is for a cloud computing architecture with software-defined networking. A Centralised Radio Access Network (C-RAN) would enable all suppliers to access the cloud using clusters of LTE base stations. Uplink signals from multiple base stations optimise network configuration by selecting the best signals at a number of receivers, thus minimising the effect of interference from other operators.
Virtual networks for different user groups are capable of being created, by the concept of ‘network slicing’, to enable a degree of separation within the cloud. Small cells are envisaged, which not only means much-improved radio connectivity within buildings but would allow end user devices to connect directly with each other. This aligns with the concept of ‘mobile edge computing’ that pushes the core functionality out to cell sites. User equipment would typically connect to multiple cells.
All of this requires radio spectrum, meaning that ever-higher frequencies are needed to fulfil the need – typically between 20 and 60GHz will be allocated.
5G technology development is substantially completed (up to release 15 on the standardisation programme with release 17 seen as the effective end point) and has reached the point whereby equipment will shortly be produced commercially.
A mobile operator’s view
The BT/EE view, as put forward by Philip Bridge who has responsibility for network architecture, shares the vision for what 5G is capable of offering but has significant doubts as to how this will be realised. A new core will be needed to achieve the benefits of infrastructure decoupling, virtualisation within the cloud and the introduction of new services. 5G is being considered in three different ways; a ‘Network View’ a ‘Functional View’ and a ‘Deployment View’.
How to integrate these three perspectives is potentially very difficult. Currently, a silo mentality prevails in the supplier community, thus making development of a ‘common cloud’ something of an alien culture. There will also be a need to integrate 5G with the ‘long tail’ of legacy equipment in 2G, 3G and 4G networks and provide roaming between all of them. The need for interworking boxes may have to be considered although this is not a desirable way forward.
4G networks are already being built on a 5G basis, thus making the eventual solution easier. Even if established, the instrumentation and training required to achieve excellent network performance is not easy with a cloud-based architecture. Methods used today for network monitoring will not work for the 5G vision and thus a transition has to happen, but with no means of knowing how this can be achieved.
It is considered that very few vendors have the stature to build a network of this type and a multi-vendor solution may have to be forced by some form of legislation. Infrastructure sharing is a likely way forward with ‘Telco Grade’ networks setting the required standard. A combined service orchestration to break up the silos with a simpler but more stable architecture will need putting in place.
The goal is full interoperability between vendors A, B and C in both hardware and software, which will be difficult to mandate and manage in terms of who would be in control of exactly what. If not executed properly, matters may become worse when compared to the present service provision, particularly in terms of faulting, maintenance and associated payments.
Whilst the technical elements are challenging, the contractual and pricing structures between the different service providers are going to be equally difficult. The declared intention of catering for autonomous vehicles makes it essential that mission-critical services are encompassed within the cloud. Such services would require priority over other applications in public 5G networks, but exactly how this will be achieved and at what cost is a question still being posed. Railways take note.
Emerging business models
Having listened to the probing view from a mobile operator, a more upbeat message comes across from the ‘forward thinkers’ within the industry. Alan Carlton from InterDigital Europe posed the question as to the role of the Core and Edge elements of a 5G network, the latter being in the ascendency but recognising that the core will still be important. A service-based architecture (SBA) is emerging to satisfy both the IT and telecom requirements leading to a flexible data centre approach that somewhat blurs the core and edge debate.
Quality of service should be at the forefront of future thinking, says Mischa Dohler, professor in wireless communications at Kings College London, and at present it remains somewhat doubtful. When comparing radio spectrum to Wi-Fi, the latter, according to statistical research, is more reliable, which is surprising since Wi-Fi operates in an unlicensed part of the spectrum. The development of radio networks has mirrored, to some degree, the architecture of 2G, which existed before the internet was invented, hence the problem.
One factor that stands out is that the UK is awash with fibre that is not being used efficiently. Connecting this all together on a shared basis would be a big asset for future radio development, in that it would make networking that much more resilient.
Localised 5G services are already in being, the city of Bristol network trial being described by Dimitra Simeonidou from Bristol University. Offering both LTE 2.6GHz and Wi-Fi services, the network uses a combination of municipality and infrastructure owners as 5G neutral hosts.
Designed to be vendor agnostic, three suppliers – NFV with an Open Source MANO platform, SDN with its NetOS controller and Nokia’s Cloudband and NetAct controller – have each supplied products to create the network to produce cloud and radio platforms out to the extreme edge of the city. The system exists as a reality, but is there primarily to prove that a 5G architecture of slicing, convergence and collaborative hubs can be constructed.
The supplier’s perspective
That suppliers are working hard to develop 5G equipment is not in doubt but the end game, in terms of what the products will deliver, is an ongoing conundrum. David Astuti from Huawei gave some predictions. The customer experience should yield a 10-fold benefit with 15Gbit/user being possible. The efficiency of new application releases should reduce from typically six months to one week, although some delegates disputed this. Connectivity is expected to improve by a factor of five.
The ‘slicing’ concept will enable different slices to be used by different user groups. Typical of these will be autonomous driving (already mentioned), smart campus networks and home domestic controls.
Getting from the present to the future needs a migration strategy. A pragmatic way forward is to:
i) Continue with 4G expansion but make this 5G ready;
ii) Create standalone 5G core networks based around a network service architecture;
iii) Merge these to create a converged core 5G network.
2018 should see the first standalone core networks introduced in readiness for such events as the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, with converged networks not likely to appear until sometime after that, except for local applications.
Additional considerations
It became clear that 5G, from a technical perspective, is making good progress, but the commercialisation of 5G services will need much more work and much more openness between suppliers.
The subject of cyber security will need to be a key priority, with Nokia believing that this will be a fundamental element of the core network.
5G must be able to handle traffic from legacy networks of 3G, 4G and even 2G origin. Just how this will be achieved is not clear. The Internet of Things and particularly the Industrial Internet of Things will be dominant requirements in 5G connectivity.
Spectrum allocation is akin to a power supply – if it is not there, the system will not work. 5G services will use a wide range of frequencies as it is envisaged that 5G products will connect to services rather than individual radio channels. Unlicensed spectrum will be part of this – local city networks will likely operate in unlicensed bands – bringing its own management challenges.
Mission critical services will, in time, inevitably move to 5G, so arrangements need to be made for these. Special facilities such as group call, push to talk and location dependence operation, important for both emergency services and rail operations, are part of the requirement.
Convincing the safety authorities that a common user 5G radio bearer is suitable for control and command will be a sensitive issue for the rail industry authorities. Whether or not rail can have a dedicated ‘slice’ with its own allocation of spectrum remains to be seen.
Attending a radio seminar not focussed just on rail was an eye opener, as it put the rail interests into perspective. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two years or so and, particularly, whether the suppliers are minded to work for greater co-operation and integration.
At the end of March, members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) were advised that some members had questioned the finances and governance of the Institution and had called for a special meeting. This advice reassured members that the IMechE’s financial strength was robust.
It also mentioned that the Institution’s president, Carolyn Griffiths, former chief inspector of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, will not chair the Trustee Board whist there is an investigation into complaints made against her by staff.
On their website, Mech Eng Matters , past Presidents calling for this meeting advise that she was removed from this role as she tried to discuss the financial state of the Institution with the Trustees she has been prevented from pursuing any measures to correct any financial and policy failings through her role. They raise questions over the conduct of the investigation and note that there was no reason to advise members of this ongoing investigation as grievances should be confidential. As a result this potentially harms the President’s reputation in breach of the Institution’s code of conduct which requires members to ensure they do not to injure another person’s reputation.
A month later, the IMechE’s 66,000 corporate and associate members received their notice of the special meeting to be held on 21 May.
This contained six motions, the first of which was a motion of confidence in the Trustee Board – tabled by the Trustee Board. The other motions included a call for an independent financial review as well as motions of no confidence in the IMechE’s chief executive Stephen Tetlow (CEO since 2009), president-elect Geoff Baker and honorary treasurer Ian Joesbury. These motions were proposed by four past presidents of the institution: Brain Kent (1994), Andrew Ives (2005), Roderick Smith (2011) and Patrick Kniveton (2013).
The eight-page special meeting noticestarted the voting process. It contains much to support the trustees’ position, including a statement from the Trustees Board, three pages of additional information supporting Motion 1, summarised accounts for 2017 and a recommendation, highlighted in red, that “Members vote in favour of Motion 1 and against Motions 2 to 6 (inclusive)”.
However, other than a copy of the letter from the past-presidents proposing their motions, it does not include any background information to support motions 2-6. When asked whether the past presidents had been offered the opportunity to explain their concerns in the special meeting notice, the IMechE replied: “The letter from four past Presidents of the Institution, containing their detailed reasoning for calling the Special Meeting and the motions they have put forward, was reproduced in full in the special meeting notice.”
One could question whether a photocopy of the letter calling for the meeting constitutes “detailed reasoning” comparable with the Trustee Board’s three-page submission, and ask whether it would have been fairer and more transparent for both sides of the argument to present their cases in similar fashion.
Speaking for the trustees, president-elect Geoff Baker stated that they were “naturally disappointed that some members have chosen to take this course of action. However, we welcome the opportunity to have a full, honest and open discussion based on accurate, factual information at the Special Meeting.” He also stressed that the financial position of the Institution is robust.
The past presidents explain why they have called for a special meeting on their website Mech Eng Matters. As well as the financial issues, the four past presidents and Christopher Simpson, who is a past chair of the IMechE’s Manufacturing Division and of its Management Group, explain their concerns about the way that the president has been prevented from doing her job as chair of the Trustee Board and criticise reduced support for the Institution’s regions, divisions and groups.
In addition, it seems that the critical motions don’t just stem from this small group of past presidents. The document continues: “We Past Presidents and Senior Fellows, and some 130 initial signatories including more Past Presidents, are so concerned about all of the above that we have gone to considerable effort, time and personal expense to call for the Special Meeting. We asked for the Motions 2 to 6. The Trustees have added their own Motion 1 to prevent the full situation from being revealed. Some members are now so concerned about the situation at our Institution that it has been reported to the Charity Commission.”
IMechE Railway Division chairman Richard McClean advised Rail Engineer that the division’s members are “somewhat confused by the contradictions generated by the Trustees’ assurances as to the financial position of the Institution when they have seen cutbacks in the number and scope of the events that the Railway Division have been allowed by the Institution to deliver”. He added that members are “also very concerned about the extraordinary and highly unsatisfactory position that our elected President has been placed in.”
He considers that the special meeting will provide an opportunity for members to consider this unprecedented situation. With such strong language and forthright views already out in the open, it clearly promises to be an interesting evening.
In South Wales, the campaign to reopen a disused railway tunnel as a foot and cycle path has passed a crucial milestone with the completion of a detailed examination into its condition.
Connecting two former coal mining valleys, it’s hoped that Rhondda Tunnel will boost the local economy by enticing tourists and creating jobs. But for the project to move forward, its ownership has to be transferred from the Department for Transport to another statutory body. The examination, together with the repair costing being developed alongside it, will inform decision-making on the viability of the transfer.
Rhondda Tunnel was closed in 1968 and has since been buried. Despite its lengthy period of redundancy, first impressions are of a tunnel in generally good condition, defects being concentrated in wet areas and where it passes close to old mine workings.
PLANTWORX, the UK’s largest working plant and equipment exhibition in 2019, is about to get even bigger with the introduction of a new dedicated section for the rail industry.
New for 2019, RAILWORX, which is being organised by Rail Media alongside the PLANTWORXteam, will offer rail industry manufacturers and suppliers the chance to showcase their latest products and innovations as part of the huge multi-industry exhibition.
It is the first time that rail has had such a significant presence at the show and reflects the growing importance of railway infrastructure projects to the UK construction industry.
Celebration of innovation and enterprise
Jolene Price, Rail Media’s events director, said: “We’re delighted to be partnering with PLANTWORX to expand rail’s presence at such a significant exhibition for the manufacturers and providers of construction equipment.
Photos courtesy of PLANTWORX
“Projects like HS2 and Crossrail 2, as well as Network Rail’s £47 billion CP6 programme, present a huge opportunity for the sector, but there is also a lot of pressure on the industry to meet this demand. RAILWORX will be a celebration of innovation and enterprise across the sector. It will be a great opportunity for our railway colleagues to learn from developments in other sectors and vice versa.”
Exhibitors at the 2017 event, which was held at the Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground near Lutterworth, included the likes of JCB and CAT.
The exhibition welcomed around 400 exhibitors from a variety of construction sectors, including groundworks, utilities, highways and demolition, and around 13,000 visitors.
The 2019 event promises to build on the previous show’s success as it moves to a new home: the East of England Arena and Events Centre in Peterborough.
Held every two years, PLANTWORX is organised by the Construction Equipment Association (CEA) – the trade association that represents the UK’s equipment sector.
Rob Oliver, chief executive of CEA, said: “PLANTWORX remains committed to its core purpose of showcasing the best construction equipment on offer to the UK market. Two major new initiatives for 2019 are the move to the purpose-built East of England Arena and Event Centre and the addition of RAILWORX – which will run alongside PLANTWORX.”
Rob added: “The biggest construction projects going forward are rail related – HS2 alone is worth in the region of £55.7 billion. Our partnership with Rail Media will give us access to key rail project executives and make the most of the great business opportunities now emerging.”
Photos courtesy of PLANTWORX
Stands and live demos
The East of England Arena and Events Centre has permanent indoor and outdoor exhibition facilities and areas for machine demonstration. The venue has a long tradition of hosting big machine events, with the likes of Truckfest and LAMMA – an agricultural equipment show – being held at the site.
RAILWORX will include a mix of trade stands and live demonstrations. The PLANTWORX and RAILWORX sites combined will cover more than 200,000 square metres.
On the final day of the show, school children from the surrounding area will be invited to explore the show and learn how the equipment on display helps to build railways around the country.
Jolene added: “The UK’s construction and rail sectors both face skills shortages that present real risks to the delivery of future infrastructure projects. By bringing in young people from the community, we hope to be able to inspire a new generation to consider a career in construction and engineering.”
To help everyone get to the exhibition, PLANTWORX has partnered with Virgin Trains to secure a 30 per cent discount on train services for visitors, exhibitors and organisers.
PLANTWORX and RAILWORX will be held at the East of England Arena and Events Centre on 11, 12, 13 June 2019.
Exhibitors will be able to purchase stand space from 21 May.For more information about RAILWORX, contact [email protected] or call 01530 816 444. For more information about PLANTWORX, contact [email protected] or call 020 82534517.
Change is a fact of life to which we often develop a resistance, particularly as we get older. Despite its embedded role in the modern world, 10 per cent of UK households still didn’t have the internet in 2017, mostly those with occupants aged 65 or over, while 27 per cent of adults had no mobile connection via a smartphone. For most of us, an offline existence in the 21st century is unfathomable, even if we might occasionally crave one.
It was a similar story when the last great social revolution came to Britain in the 1830s – that of the railway. Some saw the opportunities and embraced them enthusiastically; others opposed the blight it would inflict on our landscape and the prospect of undesirables being empowered to move about. And then there was the havoc wreaked during construction as drunken, marauding navvies shattered the tranquillity enjoyed by delicate villagers. In that context, ‘no pain, no gain’ is an impossible sell.
Ignorance promotes fear, and there was a lot of it about in the railway’s early days. Tunnels were perceived as death traps. “The furnace of the engine soon renders the air unfit for breathing,” claimed several newspapers in an 1834 article on Robert Stephenson’s proposed London & Birmingham Railway (L&BR), now known as the West Coast main line. Although shafts were proposed for its longer tunnels, “We are not aware whether the sufficiency of such an expedient for the purposes of ventilation has yet been ascertained by experiment.” Doom mongers were plentiful.
Photo: Four By Three.
Not in my back yard
Like other towns along its route, Northampton did not want the railway and vigorous opposition to it was marshalled. Members of the House of Lords threw out the Parliamentary Bill in July 1832, asserting that “the promoters had not made out such a case as would warrant the forcing of the proposed railway through the lands and property of so great a proportion of dissentient landowners and proprietors.” There was no doubt where the power resided back then.
Undeterred, Stephenson surveyed a new alignment around the west side of the town, resulting in Royal Assent being granted a year later. With it came the need for Kilsby tunnel which, at 2,423 yards, would be the longest yet driven for a railway. Joseph Nowell & Sons secured the contract to build it in May 1835 at a cost of £98,988, and resident engineer Charles Lean laid the last brick on 21 June 1838. The intervening three years brought challenges, tragedy, heroism and two unique features.
Scaffolders erect the support structure for the crash deck. Photo: Four By Three.
Go with the flow
Some idea of the likely ground conditions were already known thanks to the engineers of the Grand Union Canal who had pushed a tunnel through the same ridge 40 years earlier. Trial pits were also excavated, generally revealing Lias shale with a few beds of rock; dry in some places, whilst elsewhere there was a considerable quantity of water.
Nothing untoward had been indicated, so it came as a severe blow when quicksand was encountered in the second of the working shafts, especially as Stephenson had plotted a course to avoid this known local difficulty. Further investigations discovered the sand to be extensive at tunnel level, shaped like a flat-bottomed basin beneath a bed of clay and cropping out on one side of the hill. The trial pits had missed it.
The impact of this discovery was immediate as the workings flooded, almost leading to the tunnel’s abandonment. Attempts were made to construct lengths of the brick lining from a raft on which men and materials were floated into position. To escape one rapid inundation, an engineer swam to the base of a shaft, towing the raft and its occupants behind him with a rope held between his teeth. The stress of it all proved too much for Nowell, who took to his bed and passed away in January 1836, leaving the L&BR to deliver the rest of the project itself.
Seven more shafts were sunk – timber cylinders being assembled to hold back the sand – and, on George Stephenson’s recommendation, pumping engines were installed. Possessing a collective power of 160 horses, they operated around-the-clock for eight months, removing 2,000 gallons of water every minute from an average depth of 120 feet.
Under this protection, engineering operations continued at numerous points along the tunnel. The thickness of the lining was increased from the planned 18 inches to more than 2 feet. In the wetter areas, bricks were washed clean of their cement within moments of it being applied so straw was used to deflect the water’s ingress.
Conditions for both miner and bricklayer must have been hideous and the dangers unsurprisingly took their toll, claiming 26 of the 1,250 men involved – a death rate of 1 in 48. Not helping matters was the bizarre recklessness of some navvies – presumably fuelled by alcohol – who attempted to jump, one after another, across the mouth of a shaft. Two or three succumbed to the inevitable.
The staircase linking the crash deck with a doorway in the protection wall. Photo: Four By Three.
And breathe…
Although ten working shafts were retained for ventilation, Stephenson must have entertained doubts as to whether these would provide sufficient airflow to ensure passenger comfort. His solution might seem excessive with the benefit of hindsight, but perhaps it was more about overcoming public perceptions than any genuine assessment of risk.
In May 1836, work got underway on the first of two vast shafts, 132 feet deep and 20 yards in diameter. Its lining was formed in sections – 10 feet in depth and up to 12 feet long – which were built in trenches dug sequentially around the circumference. Once one ring had been completed, the material within it was excavated and the process repeated below until the requisite depth had been obtained. It took over a year to reach the bottom. Comprising more than a million bricks, the walls are 3 feet thick and weigh 4,034 tons. Its sibling – 800 yards further south – is 100 feet deep.
On 20 August 1838, the directors and their friends breakfasted at Birmingham station before heading south on the first ever rail journey to London Euston. They paused at ‘The Great Shaft’, which no doubt took their breath away – rather the opposite of what was intended. There to cheer them on – perched high above – were some of the men who had driven Kilsby tunnel at a final cost of around £320,000.
According to one of the engineers, the shafts “are perfect masterpieces of brickwork, and are found fully to answer the purpose for which they were intended, leaving the tunnel entirely free from any offensive vapour immediately after the transit of each train, and their magnitude can only be estimated by standing in the tunnel and looking upwards.”
Those who erected scaffolding for recent brickwork repairs in the shaft had the opportunity to do just that.
The shaft is 60 feet in diameter – providing sufficient space for the crash deck support structures. Photo: Four By Three.
Hands on
That project first appeared on AMCO’s radar in autumn 2016 as part of its LNW South CP5 Renewals framework with Network Rail. Works to the lining within the tunnel itself were also planned.
Initially the company was asked to determine the condition of both large ventilation shafts – Nos. 11 and 12 – which involved specialist engineers from XEIAD carrying out tactile surveys by rope access during four Saturday night ‘Rules of the Route’ possessions. While the outputs of these were a detailed examination including scheme drawings, budget constraints meant that repairs were prioritised in the deeper shaft where defects were greater in number.
Generally, AMCO’s preferred means of access for shaft repairs is to install a cradle, suspended from above. But the castellated shaft turrets at Kilsby are Grade II* listed, which would have created difficulties in terms of tying in a scaffold from which to support the winches. Also, the cradle would have been colossal – probably not what you’d want to be hovering over the West Coast main line.
The only other practical option was a full scaffold, bringing every part of the brickwork within touching distance. Network Rail agreed with this approach. Four scaffolding contractors submitted prices; Abbi Access Services got the job.
Photo: Four By Three.
Ups and downs
Abbi commissioned RDG Engineering to design the scaffold and a work scheme whereby it was erected in two phases. The first required low-level structures to be built either side of the railway from which a crash deck would span the two tracks, together with a staircase on the shaft’s east elevation to a sealed doorway in the protection wall at ground level which AMCO reopened. This work was progressed in Saturday night possessions with the overhead line equipment isolated, materials being transported by RRV from the main compound, located a mile south of the tunnel.
Thereafter, the remaining scaffold could be assembled in what effectively was a high street environment – safely separated from the railway, all the components being lowered by hoist from a secondary compound squeezed between the shaft and the adjacent A5.
Constructed using Plettac Metrix equipment, the scaffold was founded on timber base pads laid on the ballast, an approach designed by COWI UK following ground investigations. The crash deck – comprising X-beams and support transoms overlain with scaffold boards and plywood – was carried by seven towers on the Up side and eight on the Down, the latter being required due to the presence of two signalling cabinets.
The deck sat 780mm above the 600mm OLE exclusion zone, four temporary bonds being applied – to a design by PBH – for earthing purposes between the scaffold and OLE stanchions. A central vent allowed air pushed upwards by passing trains to escape without lifting the deck, although their entry into the tunnel was still felt by anyone standing on it.
During the possessions, Abbi built three of the towers to full height and used them to support the staircase by means of ties and diagonal wind bracing. Thereafter the remaining towers were constructed radially to create 25 single-lift rings, each two metres in height. The whole structure was tied into the brickwork using M16 threaded rods, secured by Minova Lockset resin, which were then subjected to load testing.
Directly above the tracks, three infill towers had to be erected at both ends of the shaft, initially standing on the deck. However, after two lifts had been constructed, pairs of CL25 brackets and ladder beams were installed to transfer the load from each tower into the masonry.
The Grade II listed shaft turret and secondary compound. Photo: Four By Three.
Take two
Having spent many weeks establishing the means of access, the repairs themselves were remarkably routine: breaking out and recasing areas of hollow brickwork (accounting for about one-fifth of the shaft’s surface area), extensive repointing and the removal of 180 years’ worth of accumulated soot and vegetation. It’s the sort of high volume activity that’s undertaken every midweek night without anyone batting an eyelid.
But what made this job spectacular were its setting and the complexity of the platform on which the workforce toiled. The red-brick shaft turret offered no clues as to the sight that would be revealed after walking through the innocuous doorway in its side.
Dave Thomas, AMCO’s contracts manager, endured a sleepless night or two. “As soon as you start scaffolding over the West Coast main line – with a linespeed of 110mph and live overheads – in midweek day shifts while trains are running, you need a lot of confidence in your design, in your scaffolder and in God!” he reflected.
Network Rail’s project manager, Ellen Dean, said: “The successful installation of the full scaffold enabled our team to conduct additional examinations. This has resulted in Network Rail including additional scope into the repairs, reducing the maintenance in the shaft as well as creating efficiencies for the client, and reducing the requirement to revisit the shaft for many more years to come.”
Northampton’s refuseniks succumbed to the railway age in 1845 when the London & Birmingham drove a cross-country route to Peterborough. Whilst several later tunnels have full-width shafts – Morley and Bramhope being examples from the 1840s – none boast Kilsby’s dimensions. This is a project that will only be repeated when the tunnel’s other big shaft receives the same attention.
