Edinburgh gets its trams

11th June 2014

In Edinburgh, there is enthusiasm about the introduction of the city’s tram service on 31 May. Writes David Shirres

This much is clear from Twitter and correspondence columns in the Scottish Press. As an example, an appeal for a thousand volunteers for a tram crowd exercise was fulfilled within 24 hours and massively over-subscribed.

However, there are also many who are not so enthusiastic and consider the trams to be an unnecessary waste of money. This is understandable as the project opened three years late, was almost £300 million over budget and delivered only 14.2 km of the original 18.5 km network as a result of a 2011 decision not to build the section from Newhaven and Leith to Edinburgh.

Background

In 2007, the Scottish Parliament voted to fund the tram project and authorised £490 million for a tram service between Newhaven and Edinburgh Airport which was to open in 2011. However the project ran into difficulties with almost twice the number of expected utility diversions and disputes with the infrastructure contractor. With these resulting in significant delays, the project team advised Edinburgh City Council in June 2010 that it was prepared to terminate the infrastructure contract should this be necessary.

The turning point for the project was the Council’s decision in November 2010 to support independent mediation. This led to talks being held the following March at which the mediator was successful in facilitating a mutually- agreed resolution. Shortly afterwards, the contractor re-mobilised staff at priority locations. A settlement agreement was signed in June 2010 which incorporated a revised budget of £776 million and a programme to deliver passenger services in summer 2014. So, whilst there are project lessons to be learnt up to the mediation, the project has been successful in keeping to time and cost since the revised agreement. Furthermore, its initial difficulties do not detract from the case for a tram network or the quality of its engineering.

Leaving the city

From its terminus in York Place, the tram runs through the city streets, including Princes Street, for 2.6 kilometres to an interchange at the new Haymarket station (issue 105 – July 2013). There are five tram stops in this section.

The track is the Rheda City system supplied by the German company RailOne. This has two concrete sleeper pads separated and located by an integral steel lattice-girder embedded in a poured concrete slab. The track sits on a 250mm-thick ground improvement slab which is designed to span a one metre void. In the city, black concrete is used for the final pour so the track blends into the city’s streets.

Ensuring that the tram system does not detract from Edinburgh’s status as a World Heritage City was a challenging task. To both meet this requirement and improve the quality of streets and open spaces, the Council produced a Design Manual which was used as a reference point for all planning consent applications.

On the streets

It was on and under the city’s streets that the project faced perhaps its greatest challenge – the diversion of utilities. This was undertaken under a Multi-Utilities Diversion Framework Agreement (MUDFA), the scope of which was based on information provided by the utilities. This contract was let in 2006 with the intention that utility work would be complete prior to commencement of the main works in 2008.

In the event, the difference between actual work and the original scope was 295 chambers instead of 190 and 46.5 km of ducts /pipes instead of 27.2 km. As a result, utility work continued into 2012 and, while it resulted in extra costs and delays, it did result in a significant improvement to the city’s infrastructure.

The extended utility work and tram works required an extensive programme of closures of the city’s main thoroughfares. The required diversions were planned on the basis of traffic modelling. Track work was also planned to minimise disruption with work cut into small sections of, typically, 40 metres. Nevertheless, this work inevitably involved extended periods of disruption.

The tram works also uncovered a number of archaeological finds. In Constitution Street in Leith, 390 graves were unearthed in a former graveyard dating between the late fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, and the remains of a sixteenth century leper hospital were discovered. Close to the airport, prehistoric and Dark Age settlements were found.

Of more recent vintage, an 80 metre long underground Second World War bunker was discovered at Haymarket. This had started life as a pulley room for Edinburgh’s nineteenth century cable powered trams. The modern tram system’s foundations were redesigned to preserve the structure of this bunker.

The railway corridor

The off-street section starts at the interchange stop at Haymarket station and then runs parallel to the Edinburgh to Glasgow railway for six kilometres, crossing it by two bridges. It goes around the back of Haymarket depot, passes Murrayfield stadium and makes use of a former guided busway. The route leaves the railway at Edinburgh Park where there is another interchange tram stop.

With its proximity to the railway, immunisation work was required to address Network Rail’s concerns that the tram’s 750V DC power supply might interfere with signalling equipment. The tram design also had to make passive provision for Network Rail’s electrification proposals.

The 55-metre-long low viaduct at Haymarket was built on the site of the Caledonian Ale House. This unfortunately had to be demolished to accommodate a tram station that sits on the viaduct. This is one of 12 bridges on the off-street section with a combined length of 566 metres – there is another 232-metre-long viaduct at Edinburgh Park station.

The Murrayfield tram stop is on raised ground at the back of Haymarket depot. Here, poor ground conditions required a combination of ground improvement work and the use of Leca LWA lightweight fill and a Tensar Geogrid wall system.

To the airport

From Edinburgh Park, the tram line crosses a dual carriage to the Gyle shopping centre after which there is an underpass under the A8 road. Just after this the line passes the Gogar tram depot whose construction was reported in issue 82 (August 2011). The route then goes over open country to its terminus at the airport.

Close to the depot is the planned Edinburgh Gateway station which will provide an interchange with the railway to Fife and Aberdeen. Work on this station, which is being built by Transport Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, is expected to start in September for completion in 2016 at a cost of around £30 million.

This section also involved significant construction challenges. The underpass under the A8 necessitated significant utility diversions including data cables for the nearby Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters complex.

The line’s passage through the Gogar landfill area required a reinforced earth batter which incorporated around 400 twelve-metre-long soil nails.

The design contract was awarded in 2005 to System Design Services, a joint venture between Halcrow and Parsons Brinckerhoff. Part of the requirement was the early identification of utility works, land purchase and traffic management.

The infrastructure construction works were undertaken under the INFRACO contract which also includes infrastructure maintenance. In 2008 this was awarded to BBS, a consortium of Bilfinger Berger and Siemens. BBS operated as a management contractor letting out packages which included the depot (Barr Construction), track (BAM Rail) and general civil engineering (Raynesway, Graham, McKenzie Construction, Crummock, Farrans Construction and McKean Group).

Once the mediation settlement of 2011 was in place, Turner and Townsend, which had previously worked on the Croydon, Dublin and Nottingham tram systems, were appointed to assist the City of Edinburgh Council in the project management of the works.

The last contract to be awarded was to Parkeon for the supply and maintenance of the ticketing machines, platform validators and hand-held terminals with back office software support. These will accept Lothian Buses’ Ridacards and ITSO cards.

At the airport, the required road alterations involved the diversion of the Gogarburn river, 310 metres of piled retaining wall, road re- location including a new 32 metre bridge and provision of a signal controlled level crossing.

Infrastructure contracts

As with any large scale infrastructure project, a number of companies were involved. The first works contract to be let in 2006 was the MUDFA contract – awarded to Alfred McAlpine Infrastructure Services which were subsequently taken over by Carillion. Following the 2011 mediation settlement, utility work was awarded to McNicholas.

The trams

The contract for the supply and maintenance (for 30 years) of 27 trams was let to Construcciones y Auxilar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) in 2008. These trams were built at the CAF factory in Irun, northern Spain, and were delivered between 2010 and 2012 in accordance with the original project programme. Since then, they have been subject to a CAF-specified conservation maintenance regime which included the requirement to move each tram once a month. A 200-metre section of the route adjacent to the depot opened in 2011, enabling the trams to be tested on delivery, some driver training and the required monthly movement.

At 42.9 metres, these are the longest trams in the UK and have been designed to negotiate Edinburgh’s tight curves and steep gradients. They are 2.65 metres wide, weigh 56 tonnes and consist of seven articulated modules. Four of the modules have a single bogie. The three other modules have no wheels and are suspended between adjacent bogie modules.

The trams are supplied by a 750V DC overhead catenary and have twelve 80kW traction motors on three powered bogies which also have regenerative braking – one of the intermediate bogie modules is unpowered.

Speed is restricted to 30 mph on-street and 45 mph off-street. The trams have a 100% low floor, 300mm above rail height, throughout. To achieve this, auxiliary equipment is roof mounted and bogies are rigidly fixed to the bogie vehicles with wheels on stub axles which are accommodated under seats together with the longitudinally-fitted traction motors. This arrangement also reduces the cornering squeal as it allows for differential wheel speeds.

Other systems provided onboard the vehicles include CCTV and passenger counting as well as tram detection and positioning.

Testing, Testing, Testing

For weeks prior to service introduction, Edinburgh’s residents have seen empty trams run on their streets. This is part of a rigorous testing and commissioning (T&C) plan which must satisfy a safety verification assessment under the ROGS (Railway and Other Guided Transit Systems) regulations by the Independent Competent Person (ICP) who was appointed in 2007. This early appointment was necessary so that the safety assessment process met the ICP’s requirements.

To commission the tram system, the T&C plan requires factory acceptance tests, installation completion tests, site acceptance tests and sub-system integration tests. The sub-systems are civils, track, signalling system, communication system, electrification, depot equipment, traffic light control and rolling stock.

The route was commissioned in three stages: from the depot at Gogar to the airport in March 2013, then from the depot to Edinburgh Park in December, and finally, in March 2014, from Edinburgh Park to York Place.

After commissioning, a series of system acceptance tests are required to confirm the tram system’s capability. The first of these tests, T1, requires 40 movements by a single tram, 95% of which must be within the target runtime. T1 tests tram priority at junctions and was done at night to minimise the effect of road traffic. The T2 test requires 95% of end-to-end tram movements to meet the required punctuality during three consecutive days of tram operations to the full operational timetable.

T3 is final test before passenger service can be authorised. This requires five consecutive days of the normal timetable and five consecutive days of an enhanced timetable during which a 99% punctuality standard must be achieved. This test also includes confirmation of ride quality.

During this T3 test period, exercises with the emergency services were undertaken which included tram evacuation at various locations, a derailment scenario and crowd management at Murrayfield Stadium. Lessons from these exercises and other aspects of the system acceptance tests were used to refine operational procedures.

Edinburgh joins the club

Edinburgh now has its trams and follows Nottingham (2004), Croydon (2000), Birmingham (1999), Sheffield (1994), Manchester (1992) and Blackpool (1885, modernised 2012) whose tram schemes have proved popular and promoted local economic growth. For example a West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive study indicated that Midland Metro expansion would create around 15,000 jobs and add nearly half a billion pounds to the West Midlands economy.

With the addition of Edinburgh’s 14 km tram network, the UK now has 200km of light rail. This is some way behind France (632 km) and Germany (2,921 km) which clearly believe in the benefits of light rail.

The trams’ advantages would seem to be clear and no doubt Edinburgh’s trams will benefit the city despite their troubled start. Hopefully their comfortable, quiet and pleasant ride should soon ensure that they are as popular as the trams south of the border.

Signal Engineering Resources Seminar

9th June 2014

At the end of March, Network Rail unveiled its programme of works for CP5, covering the five years from 2014 to 2019. Writes David Bickell

Introducing the £38 billion programme, Mark Carne, Network Rail’s Chief Executive said: “As a result of the investments we will be making in the next five years, by 2019 the country’s rail network will be delivering 225 million more passenger journeys each year. More trains per day will run between our northern cities. 170,000 extra seats will be available on trains going into our large cities nationwide. 500 more level crossings will be closed.

“In London, the Thameslink programme, and in Birmingham the New Street development, will both be completed, as will main line electrification in Wales and the West Country. In Scotland, the Borders project will reconnect the Scottish Borders to Edinburgh for the first time in 50 years.

“At the same time, we will be trying to deliver ‘more for less’ in the way we operate and run the railway on a daily basis. In the next 10 years, passenger and freight traffic is forecast to increase by over 30 per cent. Simultaneously, we are aiming to reduce the cost of running the railway. In the next five years, our target is a 20 per cent reduction on top of the 15 per cent reduction achieved in the last five years – a saving of over 30 per cent in a decade.”

Signalling in demand

Within Network Rail’s £38 billion, signalling will have £3.2 billion to spend over the next five years, within which an efficiency gain of £580 million will be expected – a significant challenge. Major work will be undertaken to develop a national traffic management system, migrate signalling control to Rail Operating Centres (ROCs) and install modular signalling on secondary lines and ERTMS/ETCS on the main trunk routes.

On top of all this there will be signalling work on London Underground (which has a £1 billion budget), the installation of signalling in Crossrail’s new tunnels and its integration with national systems at either end, and the planning of HS2.

In the summer of 2013, Network Rail commissioned the National Skills Academy for Railway Engineering (NSARE) to undertake a detailed review of existing signal engineering resources in the light of the planned workload for CP5. Recently, one hundred delegates from the industry gathered in London to hear the results of this review and to participate in a discussion on the key issues.

Industry view

Setting the scene, Jeremy Candfield of the Railway Industry Association (RIA) explained that there was considerable apprehension about skills shortages for signalling and that this was a particular concern with particular significance in the context of the delivery of CP5 works. In the RIA Business Survey of 2010, 50% of business respondents indicated that they would be affected by a skills shortage. By the 2012 and 2013 surveys, that had risen to 100%.

At a recent meeting of the RIA Infrastructure Clients Interface Group, two major signalling companies spontaneously made a clear statement of the difficulties of securing and retaining skilled staff. Why should this be?

Jeremy alluded to the investment history of ‘feast and famine’, not helped by the major upheavals of privatisation and Railtrack going into administration. Electrification “has been lumpy” since the 1940s with periods of no new work. Orders for new rolling stock have been hugely variable. All sectors have been affected by what was described as an investment roller coaster without the fun.

The review

Elaine Clark, NSARE’s head of training and skills, introduced the report by explaining that its scope had been to baseline existing resources and compare them against both renewals and maintenance projects, to identify the effects of international work by UK companies and of international resources available to work on UK projects, to review the IRSE (Institution of Railway Signal Engineers) Licensing Scheme and to identify any skills gap.

The study was specific to signal engineering, not including telecommunications. A steering group was set up and 45 supply chain companies were invited to provide input via a questionnaire.

The results highlighted problems that suppliers faced with up to 30% rework at the project design stage, poor visibility of future workload, a lack of detailed information from projects that would aid understanding of future resources and the need for better processes to support non- licenced trainees gaining experience on site.

Training and assessment issues were also identified with a lack of consistent training programmes and no standard training modules, not all training provision being ‘quality assured’ and a shortage of partnerships with training providers, colleges, universities.

The IRSE Licensing Scheme was seen as providing a positive contribution. Assessment and accreditation was seen as being independent and the rigour/regime of the log book works well. It has a good modular approach and, in general, the ‘levels’ of categories of licence were correct. However, a few issues were identified. The recertification process could be simplified, there is a variation in the time and cost of competence assessment, and there are difficulties with cross-licensing for signalling design and testing.

The current situation

At present, there are over 900 projects in the forthcoming workbank and an existing workforce of around 9,200 people (4,200 doing maintenance and 5,000 engaged on projects). Of these, 4,539 hold IRSE licences. The age profile is such that 400 are over 60 years old and another 700 are in the range 55-59.

In 2013/14, the industry is just about coping but there is going to be a significant shortfall in two years time with an identified work gap of 2,600 – 3,400 of which 47% are at technician/ engineer level.

Delegates discussed the problem of design rework and inefficiencies within the Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process. Mark Southwell of Network Rail explained that these issues were being tackled with the ‘TARDIS’ initiative, the benefits of which will be a new GRIP 1-4 process which will:

Improve the robustness of client remits with clear scopes and outputs identified and ‘locked down’, minimising the risk of subsequent scope change;
Reduce GRIP 1-4 timescales resulting in lower project costs and shorter project duration between first authority and commissioning;
Help to deliver the stretched efficiency target within the strategic business plan (SBP) submission over and above the 16% identified through existing initiatives;
Increase expectation that there will be further benefits in the future as a result of ORBIS due to improved/easier-to-access asset and condition data being available without the need for ‘walking the ballast’, thus reducing the level of seed funding required;
Facilitate undertaking these works early which will also help to de-risk the programme/project;
Minimise the risk of abortive costs as these schemes are condition-driven projects and therefore the likelihood of these schemes progressing to full authority once the GRIP work has been undertaken is very high.

IRSE Licensing Scheme

Colin Porter of IRSE outlined the principles of the scheme. He explained that it came into being in 1994 following the setting up of a cross industry group facilitated by the IRSE to address competence issues flagged up in the report of the Rail Accident at Clapham Junction (issues 111 and 112, January and February 2014).

The Scheme is considered to provide useful benefits and is a non- profit making venture for the IRSE. However, as it is twenty years old, recommendations for improvement include modularisation to facilitate mobility and multi-tasking, the introduction of new categories for train-borne systems, other software based systems and signal sighting, and a common standard for competence at specific equipment/task level and the issuing of Authority to Work. 6,000 people (many of them overseas) hold competence certificates issued by the IRSE of which 5,020 are members.

Delegates suggested there should be more transparency on the basis of charging as there was some variation of time/cost of assessments. The need for higher level categories such as ‘Senior Engineering Manager’ was also challenged and some perceived the scheme as overly complicated and complex and this needs to change.

Colin stressed that the IRSE is keen to continue to work within the industry and make sure that the Scheme should not be a barrier to increasing the workforce.

Aspirations

Following the presentations and discussions, the things that the industry needs to do can be summarised as:

Plan better to remove the boom and bust and smooth out the work profile;
Collaborate better and share best practice;
Reduce rework by improving specifications;
Solve the brain drain and stop talented people leaving the industry;
Attract good people into the industry including more graduates and apprentices;
Have better utilisation of people within the industry;
Improve the IRSE Licensing Scheme.

If it adopts these actions, the signalling industry should go a long way towards meeting the challenges of CP5, and beyond.

Issue 116 – June 2014

1st June 2014

Traffic Management Systems – Train Regulation Made Easy?

30th May 2014

Regulating trains so that they run in the right order and do not delay other services has been a challenge ever since railways started in business. In early times, the decision-making was left to local signalman who, by their intricate knowledge and years of experience, got it right most of the time. Writes Clive Kessell

Everything was relatively easy if trains were running to the timetable, but the challenge came when disruption occurred, maybe a failed locomotive, a section of track needing maintenance, a member of crew not being available, even the insertion of an extra train at the last moment. At such times, the capability of signalmen to sort things out was severely stretched, and running order mistakes could quickly cripple a train service.

Early steps

The advent of Traffic Control Offices in the early part of the twentieth century helped considerably, but having only telephones and telegraph instruments at their disposal severely limited what these offices were aware of and the ability to get things changed.

With the introduction of power signalboxes in the 1950s, a much greater area of control could be viewed with all train movements actively seen on a display diagram. The positioning of regulators at ‘back row’ desks enabled much greater accuracy in the regulating process but, even here, it was a human decision as to how trains should be scheduled to minimise disruption. Big as they became, power boxes still had a limited area of operation and the ability to see the order of approaching trains was restricted.

In later years, computerised systems have been developed to aid the decision making by signallers and controllers. These include:

ARS (Automatic Route Setting) whereby trains signal themselves according to the timetable and their train description, thus minimising signaller intervention but with limited facilities for prioritising the order in which trains are processed;
JOT (Junction Optimising Technique) in an attempt to look at the order of trains approaching a junction point and then signalling trains through the junction according to type, speed and importance;
Computerised Train Graphs – produced primarily for timetable compilation but used in real time for modifying the train service on a daily basis according to need, including the insertion of additional trains;
TD NET (Train Describer Networking) whereby Train Describer systems in the various power boxes have their information distributed to a common database so that other signalling centres and control offices can see the real time movement of trains over extended distances;
Timetable and train describer interaction for the updating of passenger information.

Various uses

Other systems have been developed to make use of this computerised information external to the signalling centre and control office. Project Darwin is one example. An ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) initiative, it captures real time train running information and links this into web sites and social media systems as well as improved displays / announcements at stations. The intention is that customers receive current and relevant data for their intended journey (issue 83, September 2011).

DAS (Driver Advisory Systems) give guidance to drivers on the optimum speed to be observed such that a train arrives at a particular timing point on time having used the least amount of energy by avoiding excessive acceleration and braking (issue 104, June 2013).

Traffic Management Systems

With past developments yielding so much relevant data, what further work is foreseen and needed to improve on the present situation? Current information systems have been designed as separate entities with the potential for data to be both disparate and missed, thus causing inconsistency. There are, however, many other factors that impact on train service performance which need to be integrated into the decision management process.

The result is the Train Management System (TMS) and it is not just a UK requirement as many other railways have invested in the development of such systems. The concept is to produce a single source of data for train timetabling, rolling stock allocation and train crew deployment and to use this data for operations planning and comparison to real time operational events, thus automating the signalling of trains in the optimum way. Included is the detection of potential conflicts and their best resolution, plus probing ‘what if’ scenarios on train running with consequent decision support.

Such a task is clearly challenging and effective results will be most needed at times of severe disruption. Achieving this will essentially be by marrying the signalling control panel with the computerised train planning graph. This will yield a map of train whereabouts over a wide area, derived from both traditional train describers and GPS radio tracking, from which information can be sent to a variety of systems that react to the data.

The result will have impact way beyond the basic objective of running trains to time. The overall TMS will include:

Web based distribution with configurable information management applications;
Travel information dissemination including display maps to show disruption;
Possession management and reduction of human based protection methods;
On-site communication to local terminals and smart phones;
Rolling stock re-planning;
Train crew scheduling and re-assignment when needed;
Insertion of additional trains and optimum pathing of these;
Feeding of live train running data to DAS so as to alter driver advice to take account of potential junction conflicts.

Network Rail plans and trials

Network Rail operates 24,000 trains per day and passenger demand is expected to increase by 30% in the next 10 years. Around 8,000 people are employed to operate the railway and a high percentage of operator’s time is unproductive. Managing these quantities so as to achieve maximum efficiency will be a challenge. Network Rail thus wants a TMS facility that is already proven on other rail networks.

Trial applications are underway with three providers: Hitachi, Thales and Signalling Solutions Ltd (SSL). All have reached the stage where demonstration systems have been set up, modelled on a particular operating area and including simulations of SSI interlockings and train movements. This is allowing Network
Rail engineers and operators to evaluate the effectiveness of the offering.

Part of the testing is to see whether the decision-making algorithms are better than an experienced railway controller. Unsurprisingly, controllers see this as something of a challenge!

The trials aim to show various combinations of how TMS might assist signallers, ranging from full intervention to advising on the best route settings. The chosen area for modelling is Leeds, as this contains a multitude of routes and a complex station layout. The Rail Engineer was shown all three systems by Richard Beddow, Network Rail’s project manager, and Gary Pierce, one of the ‘challenged’ controllers, in conjunction with the three manufacturers.

Hitachi TRANISTA

The Hitachi TMS, known as Tranista, is based on experience in Japan where Hitachi systems are used on both Shinkansen high-speed lines and busy commuter and mixed traffic lines, notably in the Tokyo area. On this simulation, trains are shown on entry and exit routes as the next three in running timetabled order. This list is displayed adjacent to the appropriate train describer window.

If a train fails or is stopped for an unduly long time at a platform, then that train is ‘suspended’ from the system and the next three trains are re-ordered. This process takes account of the types of train, their permitted speed, the ongoing stopping patterns and the impact of delay. Thus the recommended sequence of dispatch may not be the same as per the timetable. Once the problem with the ‘stopped’ train is rectified, then it is re-inserted into the system and a revised running order calculated.

Thales ARAMIS

Thales offers a similar simulation structured around a single operating information system that gives re-configurable control and use of decision support tools. The system is branded ARAMIS and has a modular architecture that can be structured for links to interlockings, radio block centres, fringe train describers, alarms and so forth. It is aimed at providing help in several rail activities: planning, station management, passenger information, controllers and train crew, and will cover timetable, despatch, movement authorities, network availability, incident / delay management and service information.

To link to the several types of interlocking that currently exist, Thales intends to use the WestCad system originating from Invensys (now Siemens Rail Automation) as a programmable interface. The Leeds simulation includes for normal, degraded and emergency working as defined by the nominated controllers.

ARAMIS will not optimise train crew or rolling stock diagramming / rostering, these being achieved by links to other systems.

SSL ICONIS

The proposal from SSL centres around Alstom’s ICONIS and Atos’s Integrale products with the emphasis being on the management of a mixed traffic railway. This offering is based on a consortium approach involving Alstom (one of two parent companies of SSL), Atos (an international IT organisation that acquired significant elements of CAP and SEMA Group) and Parsons Brinckerhoff.

The ICONIS TMS system is used in a number of countries but the deployment in Bologna, which is one of 12 signalling centres in Italy using different manufacturers’ equipment, equates best to the Network Rail scene. Here, TMS has enabled a significant improvement in punctuality whilst having to cope with a 30% increase in traffic. A shadow system is included to allow final validation of upgrades and changes in the live environment before loading to the operational system with no down time.

The Atos Integrale product provides a high level, national management solution to co-ordinate local TMS systems provided at individual signalling centres. For the UK proposal, linkage to other existing IT and signalling equipment such as rolling stock, crew rosters, etc. will be via the LINX integration layer, this feeding both local and overview TMS architecture.

Train running is shown by + or – minutes for early or late against the individual train descriptions on the signaller’s route setting screen. From this, optimised ARS will be advised. Any change to planned timetable routing will require human intervention. A mouse click on the description will establish a voice call to the train using GSM-R.

Conflict detection currently compares only one train to another (Pair Wise Comparison) but more variables will be developed as the system matures. A key factor will be the time taken to assess what options are available; the optimum solution might not be best if too much time is taken.

Common elements

All three suppliers envisage electronic train graphs on the signallers’ desks so that they can compare the dynamic timetabling to the normal route setting screen. This element will potentially give the signallers more information and expert advice on the optimum routing of trains. The train graph will show both the planned path and the real time actual running time of a train. From this, future conflict points will be determined with advice as to the best running order to be followed.

The use of this facility is likely to be split between the signallers who have around a 10 minute window to change things, and the train planners on the ‘back row’ desks who will view the likely changes and train movements at greater distances from the immediate station area. The train graph can be used to block out sections of route if a major problem is encountered. Options will then be to terminate, turnback or divert according to the nature of the blockage. Dealing with a suicide or a broken rail are instances where this can occur inside a normal day.

The TMS programme will be aligned to the introduction of the Regional Operating Centres (ROCs). Current plans show 12 of these nationally, with 5 already open and the remainder all due to be in partial service by the end of 2015. The ROCs are intended to cover the majority of Network Rail but it will take many years before all rail routes are controlled from these places.

TMS however, to be effective, must take account of the whole railway so TMS information and applications must be made available to the existing Integrated Electronic Control Centres (IECCs), older style Power Boxes (PSBs) and even to the remaining mechanical signalboxes whilst they remain in service. Current thoughts are to display optimised train running orders at these places with instructions to signallers to maintain this order unless exceptional circumstances intervene. This will need careful handling and a lot of lessons will no doubt be learnt in the process.

Capacity

With the ever increasing ridership and the need to run more trains, capacity on the network is becoming a real problem. Building more infrastructure is expensive and takes time, so are there any quick fixes that can help?

TMS is envisaged as a tool for improving train running sequences and minimising delay at pinch points and from this, more train paths should become available, thus increasing capacity. Exactly how beneficial this can be will be part of the evaluation period but a broad order assessment is that 10% more throughput can be obtained at the busiest parts of the network.

Other applications and the future

Once train operation is known in real time on a national scale, it will enable much improved information to be given to travellers at times of disruption. The portrayal of information by digital maps on displays boards at stations has been tried in the past (at Peterborough) and was judged to be successful. By using TMS the maps can be made more dynamic and can show for example a line being closed and the diversionary routes that trains will be taking.

Getting information into web sites and social media will continue to be a feature of Project Darwin, but the feeds to the system will have greater accuracy.

DAS is a technology that is being adopted by many of the train operating companies, but it is currently limited to the provision of data for a specific train journey. It has always been foreseen that information given to drivers on optimum running speeds needs to take account of other train movements and TMS will be a natural feeder in the accomplishment of this aim. DAS set-up information such as train set, platform diagramming and suchlike will be fed into TMS, whence the data will have to be centralised at some kind of hub and then distributed in processed form to trains via a 3G or 4G mobile network.

Information on freight trains will be particularly important as the locomotive type, speed, weight and loading all vary from train to train. Since freight trains rarely run to the same rigorous timetable of passenger services, ‘queue paths’ may be created to show available capacity if a freight train is running late or indeed to offer a path to another train should a cancellation or significant late running occur.

Possession Management is an ongoing challenge with the present methodology seen as inefficient and carrying big safety risks caused by human error. With the ability to know the real and predicted whereabouts of every train within an area plus the capability of networking this information to a local terminal (iPad or tablet), it should become possible to present more timely information to persons responsible for managing a possession. This will be aimed at planned possessions in the first instance but could potentially be useful in enabling work to be done between trains and taking emergency possessions.

Another consideration is how TMS will fit in with the future ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) programme, and some form of integration will be necessary. By electing to have a TMS system that is already in service, it is anticipated that this will have been used in conjunction with ERTMS on another rail administration.

Deployment

Once the test room simulation period is completed, one of the TMS products will be chosen for deployment in Cardiff and Romford (Essex Thameside section) ROCs to gain real- time experience. These will become operational in Dec 2015. At some stage, a high-level national system has to be included to get a UK overview on how trains are running. An individual ROC will probably only need to see approaching trains within a 60 minute time period for conflict detection purposes but a three hour window will be possible if required

Just how the ultimate procurement will evolve has still to be worked out but if a multi-supplier scenario is chosen then interoperability will be required between the different products. The single national overview system must be capable of seamlessly linking all of the ROC-based equipment.

A collaborative effort from suppliers will be needed. There is a lot at stake so keen eyes will be watching progress with interest.

UPDATE: Thales has been awarded the TMS contract for ROCS in Cardiff and Romford.