Being selective

12th April 2013

Whatever the rights and wrongs of rail privatisation in the UK, no one can deny that, in the period since it happened, the number of passengers being carried has significantly increased. Whilst a very welcome trend, it brings its own set of challenges as the increased ridership has to be managed by greater capacity in the form of either more trains or longer trains, although in practice it will come from a mixture of both.

There is much publicised activity going on with orders for new trains, many of which
are being delivered. On South West Trains (SWT), a different approach is being pursued as redundant ‘Juniper’ carriages from the erstwhile Gatwick Express stock (class 460) have been transferred to SWT to lengthen the Class 458 trains. Now re-instated after reliability problems, these are mainly operating on the Waterloo – Reading lines. Currently these trains are four coach units but the additional carriages will increase this to five.

With longer trains comes the problem of platform lengths. It can be an expensive business to lengthen them and this may also involve having to re-site signals and other lineside infrastructure. Some stations may be constrained between, say, a tunnel mouth and a level crossing so longer platforms become physically impossible to achieve. Lightly used stations can pose a problem as the cost of lengthening platforms may be hard to justify.

Selective door opening (SDO) could be the solution, with an automated system which will only allow the guard to open doors that are actually stopped in the platform. On some TOCS, the relevant doors will automatically release when the train is proven stopped in the right platform. Travellers have grudgingly got used to the automated on-train announcements which ask them to change carriages before alighting from the train.

So how does selective door opening work and how is this impacting SWT?

Developing Tracklink

Issue 58 of The Rail Engineer (August 2009) included a description of the development of selective door opening technology by Hima- Sella, a Stockport-based company specialising in interactive track-to-train communication technology. Early systems were installed on the South East Networker fleet but never commissioned because a revised train service pattern obviated the need for 12-car trains.

A Tracklink I system was developed from this and partially installed on the SWT Juniper fleet to replace the guard having to do door controls at some short-platform stations. Again, it was never commissioned as the trains were suffering from reliability problems and had to be taken out of service. The next application was on the Southern Railway Electrostar fleet using a new generation of equipment – Tracklink II – and has been successfully deployed. However, the quite large track loops, similar in size to TPWS (train protection and warning system) grids, have never been popular with the permanent way engineer as they tend to interfere with the operation of track maintenance machines.

Hence a Tracklink III has been developed, the first customer being London Underground in readiness for the introduction of the S Stock on the Sub Surface Lines. With the complication of the fourth rail, mounting the track beacon between the running rails was impractical so a side mounted configuration has been adopted, usually on the platform wall, necessitating readers to be installed on both sides of the train.

With a single type of train being deployed on these lines, this did not present too much of a problem. The same logic cannot be applied to SWT and a reversion to track mounted beacons and undertrain readers is being adopted.

A new design of beacon was developed and 75 were installed at locations on the Reading- Waterloo line between Nov 2011 and Feb 2012. However, the beacon was found not to be strong enough to withstand everyday track maintenance conditions and a number of the partially encapsulated electronic
tags were smashed. A revised design was therefore produced with the tags being fully encapsulated, 20 of these being installed for a second trial between Feb and May 2012 that has proved successful.

Inside Tracklink III

The system works by siting the unpowered beacon with its electronic tag at the entry point to every platform. Where reversible lines exist, a beacon is positioned at each end. Every beacon is coded with a unique identifier for that platform using a 60-bit code made up of:

» Application code – 9 bits

» Station identifier (3 letter code) – 15 bits

» Platform number – 5 bits

» Platform length – 10 bits, covering from 0 to 1023 metres

» Correct side door enabling (left or right) – 2 bits

» Approach direction (Up or Down) – 2 bits » Selective door system operative – 1 bit » Check bit code – 16 bits.

Once a beacon is coded for a particular station and platform, it is encapsulated into the casing and fixed for life. Reprogramming is possible, but Network Rail have decided against this owing to the risk of errors compromising the safety of door opening controls. The system is rated as SIL (Safety Integrity Level) 2. In the event of changed track or platform conditions, a new beacon must be provided. This can be programmed on site by S&T technicians using a laptop facility.

Power for the electronic tag is derived from the radio signal transmitted downwards by the train, the signal transmit frequency being in the 865.7 to 867.9MHz band using frequency hopping radio identification technology. Power levels are low so no radio licence is required and the trials have confirmed that there is no over-read from adjacent tracks. At 75mph, 25 ‘reads’ are achieved between the train and the beacon. At slower speeds, as would be expected from a train about to stop at a station, proportionally more ‘reads’ will be obtained. The system is capable of successfully reading up to 120mph but such line speeds are not available on SWT tracks.

The trial period of 67 days had 45 days of rain and the beacons were also subject to the accumulation of brake dust, grease and general lineside dirt. No adverse impact on system operation was found. Three types of beacon are available, i) for E-Clip sleepers, ii) for Fastclip sleepers, iii) for timber sleepers. Each is a slightly different length and weight but the electronic tags are identical. The GRP beacon casing is made by Vortok, based in Plymouth, and the electronic tag has been designed and manufactured by Hima-Sella in Stockport.

Deployment

A selective door opening system requires co-operation between Network Rail, the train operator and the vehicle manufacturer, which in turn means the letting of multiple contracts. It requires all parties to be satisfied that the system is robust and fit for purpose, hence a prolonged approval process which took until Oct 2012. SWT took a management view that it needed to equip both the Juniper and Desiro train fleets as neither are dedicated to specific routes. In turn, this has meant laying beacons at a large proportion of its stations. Each beacon is around 1.2 metres long and supplied to Network Rail for installation by permanent way staff with signal technicians checking that they are in the right place. A total of 514 (plus spares) are to be installed and will be done in three phases, all of which Hima-Sella has to supply by August 2013.

Train operation and fitment

Fitting the trains with underfloor readers has brought its own challenges. The Siemens Desiro trains of Classes 444 and 450 have a modern Train Management System (TMS) that services the whole unit and thus a reader has only been fitted to every cab vehicle. The reader picks up data from the beacon and enters this into the TMS via an RS485 communication port. All readers are active but only one is needed to acquire the platform information. The TMS will then know where the train is, if it is due to stop at the station, which side the platform will be and which doors to release if it is a short platform. The stopping accuracy by the driver is based upon ± 2 metres from the platform marker point. A total of 344 readers are being supplied for the Desiro fleet, these being fitted at the Northam depot near Southampton.

The Class 458 Juniper trains from Alstom are an older design with only a limited TMS which is already full and would be expensive to upgrade. Thus it has been necessary to fit every carriage with a reader, which will include the additional carriages to be inserted to make the 5 car unit. The operation will be different; each reader will connect to that carriage door control and every carriage that passes over the entry beacon will have the door opening enabled. Thus the positioning of the beacon and the stopping point of the train becomes more critical since the TMS does not provide the same route- based information.

Although not currently used, correct side door opening can be derived from the beacon data. A total of 180 readers will be required (36 five-car trains) and these
are being supplied to Alstom’s Wolverhampton premises before being fitted by Wabtec at Doncaster, the company which is carrying out the five-car conversion.

The readers are powered by the standard 110V DC train supply to RIA 12 and 13 spec and conform to EN50121 and 50155 for EMC limits.

The whole project is scheduled to be completed by Dec 2014 and will be a lot less expensive than lengthening platforms. The Tracklink III specification is likely to become a de facto standard for SDO, this being needed to avoid duplicated fitment if different TOCs operate services across the same piece of railway. Similar circumstances are about to be encountered on London Overground where the intended lengthening of trains to five-car units will cause problems at some stations.

Such is the price of successfully carrying more and more people.

Has third rail had its day?

10th April 2013

This fascinating question was posed and debated at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ headquarters during a recent seminar organised by the Railway Engineers’ Forum (REF). The REF, a grouping of the railway interests of the engineering and associated professional bodies, aims to hold a joint technical seminar once a year. With the emphasis on growing electrification and the possible spread of 25kV into traditional third rail electrified areas, this was felt to be a subject ripe for debate. One can argue that putting wires up is easy while managing the changeover is not. In principle, many trains are dual system or can easily be made so and economics will drive the change which will commence with the recently-announced freight spine.

An electric spine

Following the usual opening remarks, first off the line as keynote speaker was Peter Dearman, head of energy for Network Rail and the man leading the charge towards full network electrification. Peter openly stated that he wanted the UK to be like Switzerland with an all-electric railway!

The outline of the day was set by the fact that Network Rail is to develop an ‘Electric Spine’, with high-voltage overhead-contact system electrification, between Southampton and the Midlands. This highlights the need to upgrade the power system between Southampton and Basingstoke, a section of railway which is currently electrified at 750 volts DC third rail.

AC or DC?

A study of history reveals two great protagonists – Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison: Tesla for AC and Edison for DC. In the United Kingdom, the Edison corner won the day as the country has a large proportion of the world’s DC electrified railway.

However, the situation in regard to energy costs has changed hugely since those early days, as have attitudes towards safety. Would anybody really countenance laying down metal bars, electrified at 750 volt DC, all over the transport infrastructure nowadays?

Development costs of DC systems are also high. Peter Dearman pointed out that the fairly recent spend on power supply reinforcement in the South only enabled the railway to stand still in traction capability terms.

There is massive technological development in AC systems already, and this advance is transferrable to renewal in DC areas as well as new development in non-electrified regions. A particular example is in the application of IEC 61850 dealing with rationalised feeding architecture.

DC economics

The seminar was intended to fully debate the subject and was not confined to purely engineering and technical presenters. Peter Dearman was therefore followed by Michael Woods who is head of operations and management research at the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB).

RSSB had enabled a research project, T950, investigating the economics of the third rail DC system compared to other electrification systems. This research, carried out on behalf of the Future Electrification Group (a sub-group of V/TE SIC – the Vehicle/Train Energy System Interface Committee), has considered the long-term options for modification to or replacement of the 750V DC third rail electrified system.

Michael has had considerable experience in managing a third rail DC railway and also has a useful eye for history. He came up with a very relevant quote from Silvanus P Thompson FRS, president of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in 1904, who said ‘live rails … will soon be a thing of the past’.

Following that historical interlude, Michael then moved on to set the agenda for the rest of the day by presenting a list of the potential benefits of changing to a 25kV OLE system which could include:
» Reduction in the capital cost of renewal;
» Reduction in energy consumption and carbon footprint on a ‘like for like’ basis;
» Reduced sensitivity to ice and snow;
» Reduced track maintenance and renewal costs; » Increased system performance enabling reduced journey time, reduced fleet size and increased route capacity;
» Increased line speed above 100mph in some specific cases;
» Reduction in risk of electrocution of lineside workers and trespassers;
» Reduced distribution charges and costs of electrical control;
» Energy and operational cost savings from the electric operation of freight and cross-country passenger services.

Nevertheless, the potential shortcomings of 25kV overhead electrification schemes were not ignored. Events during the week before the seminar had reminded delegates what can happen when things go wrong with major disruption on the East Coast main line at St Neots and the Midland main line at Radlett. (See A ‘bad wire day’ in this issue on page 32.)

An operator’s view

The wider range of the day was then emphasised by Tim Shoveller, managing director of the South West Trains/Network Rail Alliance. Tim put the point from the business angle and was at pains to point out that he would “concentrate on the revenue line.” His early point was “If we don’t get the electricity to the train, the train does not run.”

Tim is well-aware of the shortcomings of the existing system and expressed his concerns regarding traction cable lugs degrading and coming adrift together with other symptoms of a railway seriously overloaded in the traction sense. However, Tim had promised he would surprise the assembled multitude and he did so by reminding us that his railway was full (standing customers inbound from Winchester on occasions) and that his preference would be to put up the wires to Southampton by way of Andover, the Laverstock loop and Romsey!

And now – technology!

Having discussed the business and operating angles, the seminar moved on to the technological one. Next up was Shamil Velji, energy engineer at the RSSB. Project T950 was again visited, and it is worth quoting part of the output from that report as this helped to shape further debate on the day:

“The conclusion of this research is that replacement of the 750V DC system with 25kV AC appears to be both feasible and economically desirable. The economic case is likely to improve as energy costs increase over time. The affordability of the change has yet to be determined,

but an opportunity exists to start the replacement process within the next industry control period so that the advantage can be taken of
the relatively large quantity of DC equipment becoming life expired at that time. To make such a change is a very significant decision to be taken by industry and government (as funder), and would require a large amount of further work to develop a whole industry business and implementation plan to take account of the impact on train operators and the industry’s customers.”

The undoubted advantages of electrification were quickly confirmed with the power output of a Class 92 electric locomotive being around twice that of a diesel Class 66. The T950 report initially reviewed two example routes (Basingstoke to Bournemouth/Weymouth and East Croydon to Brighton) with a high level examination of the entire network. A major feeding diagram for the Brighton line configured in a 50kV autotransformer system was fascinating.

The debate then looked at possible economies – for a similar duty, the energy consumption on an AC system is around 15% less than for a DC system.

Input on infrastructure

Railways are a system, so an important part of the agenda for the day was to examine the effect of electrification on various aspects of the railway’s infrastructure. This was reviewed first of all by David Weedon, principal signal engineer for the Thameslink programme. His role is to lead signal engineering activities across the programme as the ‘Technical Authority’ for signalling; and thus he is well placed to appreciate the interaction between electrification and signalling and telecommunications. The S&T function has developed alongside electrification for many years but one task that remains is to develop suitable standards in connection with autotransformer systems.

Generally, the interface with electrification is less of a problem with the more recent signalling technology and moving AC electrification systems into an existing DC electrification area is seen as a preferable option. However, David reminded us that dual AC / DC system areas are much more challenging. Robust, relevant standards should be introduced as soon as possible in order to avoid having to demonstrate interfaces and compliances every time a technological item comes along.

Bill Free then entered the ring to give the civil engineer’s view. Bill is head of business development for Carillion Rail. The impact of overhead electrification is, of course, significantly different to that of the DC system, but the provision of improved clearances has been part of the civil engineering structural workload in recent years. Appropriately Bill has been closely involved with clearances for freight movement on the very route we are looking at as a case study, including the major works in Southampton tunnel. He emphasised the need, and the ability, to undertake structural works with the minimum of interference to day-to- day rail movements.

Other examples included gauge enhancement works on the North London Line and the way in which partnering and early contractor involvement, with everybody working with aligned goals and no ‘man marking’, could improve performance. Bill’s emphasis was also on the encouragement of innovation and clear remits with less preferential engineering – all vital lessons for the industry.

Don’t forget the trains!

No analysis of the subject of the day would be complete without the rolling stock angle and Euan Smith, head of fleet at Angel Trains, was asked to lay out the facts that relate to the issues of traction conversion.

In summary, the rolling stock provider needs to take on board operational fleet requirements and flexibility when making a valid efficiency comparison between modes. The pros and cons of new build and the complexity of modification have to be considered, along with the vital question of the timing of the change. The proposals being discussed affect only a small percentage of the route on which Angel Trains’ Siemens units are used and questions were raised about maintenance requirements and the effect that any modifications would have on availability. Euan pointed out that on the class 440 there was a low level of preparedness for conversion to AC while class 450 was likely to involve less work.

Back to electrification

Last but not least, we moved back to the electrification function with a thought provoking presentation from Graeme Brindle, technical director for electrical and systems engineering at Amey Consulting. Graeme revisited the subject of electrical clearances but also drew attention to the practicalities of the availability of grid connections and power supplies. He also introduced the quaint term ‘vagabond currents’, currents which leave the surface of conductors where they are positive with respect to their surroundings and carry metal with them. They travel via unintentional routes creating conductor heating and electromagnetic interference.

The question of availability of 400kV and 275kV grid lines in the south of the UK needs to be tackled but his core message was that the track is not earthed in DC systems whereas, in AC systems, it must be earthed. These circumstances do not sit happily together. Electrolytic corrosion is likely to appear – the effect is a function of current density and time and an interim situation could be analysed and risk assessed to allow proper management of the phenomenon.

Lineside installation earthing is an issue that is transient during changeover but needs to be carefully assessed for impact. Most lineside installations and structures, such as stations, signalling power distribution and switch heating, will require traction bonding. Supply authorities will also raise concerns about use of their earthing terminal and this could be dealt with by combined earthing, earthing to traction or an isolating transformer interface. However transformers are costly and take up space.

And that brought the session to a close. As well as practical angles and some technical challenges, the day included some illuminating insights into railway history; both blind alleys and opportunities missed. The conference had achieved its aim of promoting robust debate during the question and answer sessions which, allied with much good-natured questioning of figures and data, had produced some very useful inputs and opinions. Both the Railway Engineers’ Forum and delegates agreed that the seminar had contributed to the debate on the future of railway electrification in the UK. It will be interesting to see plans develop further over the coming years.

What to see at Railtex 2013 #3

9th April 2013

In the run up to Railtex, Rail.co and the rail engineer will be looking at the must-see innovations on display at this year’s event.

CRC Industries UK

Stand D40

CRC Industry UK’s AQUA PAINT MARKER is an innovative product development that specifically addresses the problem of solvent discharge into the environment from traditional survey/spot marking paints. These solvents are not only harmful to operators, but are not particularly good for the environment either.

Based on water, and removing all solvents considered harmful, AQUA PAINT MARKER drastically reduces solvent emissions, minimises health and safety concerns, and still delivers uncompromising product performance and will produce temporary marks for use on almost any surface including: concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, grass, soil, and wood.

The water based formulation replaces 35% of the solvents and substitutes the remaining solvent for IPA a ‘gentle’ solvent that is non-aromatic and means that the product does not contain acetone or xylene either.

The evolution continues with a valve and formulation development that negates the requirement for users to clear the valve after use by spraying the product in the air. The No-Purge valve saves on wasted propellant and product which is great news for the environment.

DAC

Stand C76

DAC have combined their highly reliable Network Rail approved RA708-CB trackside telephone with a No1 BR lock to produce an anti-vandal signal post telephone.

Traditional solutions when installing telephones in areas where there are high instances of vandalism utilise a fabricated anti-vandal housing.

Whilst this is a perfectly acceptable solution, procurement and installation costs are obviously high. The approved DAC solution, PADS No. 087/000651, will fit on a standard PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) mounting post, resulting in reduced cost of procurement and a significantly lower cost of civil engineering and installation.

DAC will be demonstrating their Network Rail approved trackside GSM telephone as well as exhibiting its wide range of weatherproof and vandal resistant telephones.

Visitors to stand C76 where will be able to take a look at DAC’s newest developments and to discuss, learn about and experience the latest products that DAC has to offer.

Dold Industries

Stand A41

Dold Industries is a leading ISO 9001 approved European manufacturer of measuring relays, timers and interface relays for industrial and safety applications with a hard-earned reputation for service, product reliability and performance.

Currently used throughout Europe and the USA, several train manufacturers and maintainers specify and install Dold relay products. As a direct result of this, many products in our range comply with the current UK rolling stock requirements for EMC, voltage and transients, temperature and shock and vibration.

Test and reliability data is available to customers on request, with the option of additional performance testing if required; our railway compliant products are also CE approved for railway applications.

As Dold is the designers and manufacturer of internal relays, enclosures and PCB assemblies, it has the ability to offer cost effective and flexible technical solutions to replace many of the old and discontinued relays and timers currently in service on UK rolling stock.

Dorset Woolliscroft

Stand D42

Dorset Woolliscroft, part of the Original Style group, will be showcasing its extensive range of slip-resistant floor tiles at Railtex.

As a result of UK and European legislation, increasing importance is being placed on specifying and sourcing the most effective anti-slip flooring. It is imperative that the product specified performs to the required standard for the long term. The latest Stations Code of Practice document for station flooring stipulates that ‘All floors should have some slip resistance when wet or dry’. From platforms to ticket halls, walkways to footbridges and entrances to exits, the Dorset Woolliscroft brand includes a choice of non reflective flooring solutions.

Dorset Woolliscroft tiles are suitable for a broad range of applications where durability, cleanability and safety are important, especially in larger public areas. They have recently been specified for use in many station projects, including Newcastle Metro, London Vauxhall, Richmond, Basingstoke and Staines.

DuPont Performance Coatings

Stand G43

DuPont Performance Coatings, the experienced coatings partner of choice for the rail industry, is exhibiting at Railtex 2013 – stand G43.

Durability, high resistance to wear and low maintenance costs, coupled with pleasing aesthetics and exceptional anti-graffiti properties, characterise the DuPont CoatingSolutions eco-friendly technologies and innovative product offerings. At the show, the brand will highlight its extensive experience in coatings for both new and refurbishment projects by showcasing its internal and external coatings ranges, in particular a vast range of colour choices including metallics, and a wide variety of gloss level finishes.

DuPont CoatingSolutions will also demonstrate its sustainable, technology-driven paint solutions for any application through its technical and global supply solutions. Visitors to the stand can also expect to learn about the DuPont CoatingSolutions’ training courses, which have been designed to meet any requirement for applicators.

Sir David Higgins: The view from the top

8th April 2013

Sir David Higgins has been chief executive of Network Rail for just over two years. In early March, he invited our very own Nigel Wordsworth to his office in Kings Place, overlooking the Regent’s Canal in London. Over the next couple of issues, Nigel’s in-depth interview will cover how Sir David got to grips with the industry from a standing start and his views on the important strategic issues that affect the industry.

The first thing I noticed when I moved into the rail industry was the scale and complexity of the operation.

There are so many different disciplines. There is everything from track to power to structures to signalling. It’s just so complex…. and then there are all the multiple stakeholders.

I think the other thing you realise is that you might wish to talk about strategy, but if you’ve just had an overhead line down on East Coast, no one wants to talk about anything other than rectifying the train service!

It’s relentlessly operational, it’s complex and it’s fragmented. Having come from outside the railway industry, I just never realised how fragmented it is. There are so many other parties involved or approvals that are needed. And everywhere there’s an interface, there’s a cost.

The other surprise is the age of technology. We have a range of technology going from stuff that is a hundred years old to the latest traffic control systems in our new operating centres – but there’s just a huge variation. We still have track workers with red flags and a hooter, you know, it’s like the Railway Children!

shutterstock_127103108 [online] — Photo: shutterstock.com.

Until we brought in GSM-R, the way that a train driver would report an accident was to stop the train, get off, walk along the track, find a signal phone, ring up, and say “Guess where I am. I think I’m somewhere so many chains from such and such a mile post”. You think, “Really! It can’t be like that, can it?” So the railway has survived on tried and true technologies and a failsafe, fingers crossed, system for a long, long time. And unlike every other infrastructure in this country, it’s growing at a dramatically high rate.

So you sat down on day one having landed in this hugely complex business. How on earth did you decide what you needed to do first?

There was absolutely no point in trying to second guess our experts in the industry or, for that matter, in our suppliers and our train operating companies.

No, the first thing I did was to listen for the first three or four months. I had that white flip chart over there and I just had people come and sit and talk to me for an hour. I would sit here and listen, and whenever they said something I would scribble it up on the board and ask them. “Is this what you’re saying?” All I was trying to do was listen and translate what they were saying, trying to understand where there were common threads.

And from that I eventually came down to the conclusion it’s about getting more productivity out of our industry and our organisation, and the only way we can do that is to take away the conflict ridden system to try and create more joined up-thinking.

We have got to try and overcome the fragmentation by getting people to work together. So let’s combine everything at route level and take away the barriers.

The next obvious thing was setting up alliances. Rather than fighting with each other, let’s try working at other things that make us stronger because ultimately the public really doesn’t give a damn about all these different, complicated companies. They don’t see the fragmentation, they just see frustration.

Does the greater world, then, see you as a maintainer of Victorian infrastructure rather than a builder of new railways?

Perhaps they do, but the irony is that every year we do two and a half billion pounds of new work, enhancements, rather than just maintaining and renewals. So although we do a huge amount of new work, people just don’t see it.

I’m amazed at the complexity of the work we are doing. I mean, changing over an existing signalling control system, like we are just doing at Western for example, on a very densely used operational railway – one of the most densely used railway networks in Europe – is an incredibly complex thing to do.

But reliability must be almost your top priority isn’t it?

I think it was day three after I arrived when I went to a Select Committee and I said there is a trade-off between capacity and performance. That was said intuitively, but now the industry accepts the principle.

The more and more trains you put on the tracks will ultimately affect performance. I am quite convinced of that and we have had one or two international experts who have come in and looked at our routes, modelled them and come to the same conclusion. There is not enough resilience in the timetables. Some of these timetables are now so old they’ve lost their value and therefore they need to be re- planned.

As for resilience we have 22,000 sets of switches, all with the potential to fail. I would love that they didn’t fail, but they can – although such incidents are fewer. But a feature emerging over the last three years is that the recovery from an incident is now more disruptive than the original issue. So you have an incident at Croydon in the morning peak that takes six or seven hours for the service to recover.

I would like to have fewer and fewer incidents which is why remote condition monitoring is so important. We are able to pre-empt a problem and solve it before a service failure.

If you go back 10 years, the scourge of the industry was defective rails. Nowadays, with ultrasonic testing and measurement trains, we can predict failure risk. It’s not failsafe, but certainly a huge amount is picked up showing where intervention is needed. So there’s a move to condition-based monitoring; a move to risk-based intervention on the railway line so we can intervene, repair or replace rather than having a disruptive failure. Remote condition monitoring of switches has allowed us to intervene and replace, maintain or repair them before they fail.

But some of our signalling systems are old and the best thing you can do is to leave them alone because inevitably, when you do touch them, some time now or in the future a fault is going to occur because of old cabling. So, what can we do about that? Replace the lot? Well, we’d like to, but realistically we can’t replace or upgrade all that Victorian infrastructure completely. But we can get smarter about how we manage it, although we are never going to eliminate every incident.

And all the while there are pressures from all around?

To reduce disruption when a failure does occur means a much closer co-operation with the key passenger train operators. Now that’s complicated on West Coast when the biggest operator only has 15% of the route capacity, but we’ve got to have recovery plans that everyone is trained on and is happy to use so that we change the timetable at short notice.

Despite the pressures and the lobbying, what we have to do is say there is not the money in the country to solve these issues all
at once. For example, we’ve got 300 signal boxes that are over 100 years old. I mean, some of them run crucial parts of the West coast. It’s bizarre isn’t it? 125 mph Pendolino depending on levers, but that’s where we are.

Ultimately, we would like to have state of the art traffic management systems to get the most effective use of our capacity. We’ve done it in East Midlands. Fabulous, great! We would like to bring everything into the twenty-first century but, realistically, it’s going to take 20-25 years.

There are just not the resources, and the other thing we’ve got to stop doing is turning the tap on and then turning it off again. We lost all the electrification skills in the whole industry, everything from front line troops to design. We did the same with train manufacturing as well. Then we wonder why we don’t have that capacity! We need to say we have a 20-25 year plan that will go from replacing ageing signalling systems right through to European train control systems through to traffic management and we’ll build up and sustain the expertise from design through to managers.

It is the same with the civils, the structures and the embankments. We’ve just had a terrible time with our civils structures, you know. We had sixty landslides in one day, just on Western alone. It was a really, really concerning time. Without doubt we’ve got to get a lot smarter in how we monitor embankments.

I noticed in the business plan that drainage gets quite a mention.

I think, as in all things, data quality on assets is crucial. We’ve always had a very strong capacity on track. In control period 4 we will have saved a billion pounds by a more intelligent way of replacing rail. On drainage, we are spending a substantial amount of money this time round but we are certainly putting in for larger investments, particularly in our earthwork structures, next year and next control period as drainage is essential to maintain our basic infrastructure as well as ensuring high track quality.

Similarly with level crossings. There has been a huge campaign on level crossings for the last two years. The more we know about level crossings, the more risk we understand about them. One of the first things our level crossing managers will discover is that there is a higher risk on these level crossings than we thought because there is more misuse.

It is very easy to get a bad press on safety because you get one incident and it hits all the headlines.

Level crossings, and there are around 6,300 of them, still remain the highest risk to the train service. We shouldn’t have any at-grade level crossings on high speed lines. It’s just the wrong way to run a railway, but we do. I’d love to close thousands. In this control period we are closing over 700 or 800 but I would love to close thousands more – particularly user crossings.

But closing level crossings in many cases is a long, tedious legal process because they come from parliamentary bills.

The level crossing is where you interface with the local council and pressure groups, several of whom have different ideas.

We have many of those cases and we are dealing with one right now. The coroner said a level crossing should be shut as there was one just down the road. So we shut it. We locked it. Half a dozen times the locals have broken open the locks and forced it open. There’s a massive local resident group who are saying that they don’t want to walk 200 metres down the road to the other level crossing which is much safer. They say that it’s their right and just because two people have been killed there it’s not their problem. Really,

I feel that the communities need to take some level of accountability.

I can understand the frustration as we have more and more dense train services. The time that barriers are down increases, and it’s not going to get any easier. But there isn’t the money to build over-bridges and, what’s more, many communities don’t want them, they just find them unsightly!

And subways are prohibitively expensive, you know, you’re talking ten million plus for those under major lines so, yeah, it’s not an easy story.

But how can you mitigate the risks from the impulsive actions of others?

There is much more we can do, even in suicides and trespass, with fencing and barriers on the stations themselves. There are hotspots and we work with British Transport Police very effectively and Samaritans on those areas. We run media campaigns and have been very, very active in the last 18 months with campaigns to address intruder issues.

But our railways are a lot safer than they were. We have a safety standard comparable only with off-shore oil rigs and nuclear power stations.

We carry people on our service, we don’t carry water or power, and therefore passenger safety is always going to be incredibly sensitive and so the issue dominates our Board, it dominates our management team and everything we do.

Track-worker safety is one particular area which we really are very unhappy about in terms of our performance. It is just totally unsatisfactory that people should be put at risk and our systems of getting track access and our systems of work need reforming to improve safety. We need more training in frontline supervisor and track-worker level but we shouldn’t have a situation where someone is put at risk.

You’ve changed your safety philosophy recently from the Safety 365 system to this new life saving rules system. Is that partly reactive to this specific problem?

I’m sure you’re aware, the whole idea of league tables encourages a certain level of behaviour and we wanted to stamp that out and say safety isn’t about league tables, it’s about having a safer system of working. The classic pyramid says that to avoid one fatality we’ve got to have a thousand close- call reports. So we should be encouraging people, we should bring in a culture that when something happens that doesn’t result in an accident there should be no blame. People should be encouraged to report because only by reporting close-calls, near misses – whatever you wish to call them – are we going to work out the unsafe events on the railway that we need to correct.

Certainly, the standards and the access to the track and the assessment we use needs to be reformed because it’s not fit for purpose in terms of providing simple, clear direction.

So, we’ve bought in the life saving rules, but we are in the process now of streamlining all of our other rules to come up with, ideally, a hundred rules maximum. Maybe there will be a few more but they will say very clearly what you can and can’t do. Then everything else, the ‘how you do it’, should be advisory, or should be best practice or available as advice, but it shouldn’t be a rule.

In our next issue Sir David will expand on Devolution and how it all started; on alliances; on the new Infrastructure Projects Organisation – and the 6’ 6” high business plan.