Home Blog Page 262

Loughor Viaduct replacement

Constructed in 1852, the Loughor viaduct is a 220 metre long, eighteen span railway structure, constructed mainly of timber, which carries a single track railway line over the Loughor Estuary between Swansea and Llanelli in South Wales.

Originally one of Brunel’s once numerous timber viaducts, the superstructure has since been entirely replaced and it has received substantial re-designs and strengthening works in subsequent years, last being refurbished in the mid 1980s.

Now, detailed site investigations and conditional surveys have determined that the viaduct has reached the end of its lifespan. Network Rail and Carillion are replacing the complete structure, including the existing piers within the current track alignment, with a new viaduct capable of supporting two tracks as part of the larger, £50 million Gowerton Re- doubling Scheme. The work is jointly funded by the Welsh Government and Network Rail.

Design Criteria

One of the primary considerations for Tony Gee and Partners in designing the replacement for Loughor Viaduct has been the construction methodology and how the new viaduct can be constructed within the limited 250 hour blockade provided by Network Rail in March 2013. As there is only a limited period of rail disruption available, the vast majority of the construction had to be carried out in advance, allowing the switch over from the existing to the new viaduct during the shut down period.

This resulted in the new bridge being designed to be constructed in sections and launched longitudinally from the west bank alongside the existing viaduct and slid transversely into position during the blockade in March.

The existing viaduct is a Grade 2 listed structure, so listed building consent to demolish it was required before work could commence. Network Rail and Carillion planned to retain as much of the existing structure as possible and the east and west abutments have been incorporated into the new design to retain some of the heritage of the original viaduct.

Loughor Viaduct – Launches 1 to 4 from STUDIOME on Vimeo.

Although the viaduct was originally double track, it was single tracked in 1986 by British Rail due to structural concerns. In addition, a speed restriction was imposed for both freight and passenger trains. Such capacity constraints were having a negative impact on the immediate and wider economy of the region as the bottleneck was causing unacceptable delays. The new viaduct at Loughor will therefore not only be beneficial to the local community but will contribute greatly to the economic regeneration of the region and Wales as a whole.

Environmental constraints

With Loughor being a designated conservation area, ecological impact assessments were carried out in the form of desk studies, surveys and consultations with stakeholders such as the Carmarthenshire County Council and the City and County of Swansea planning and environmental departments. The existing viaduct is situated within or adjacent to several sites of European importance for nature conservation. These include the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which was designated in 2004 for the presence of important habitats, SSSI (sites of special scientific interest) and Ramsar wetlands.

Consequently, prior to commencement of the project, flood defence licences and a marine consent had to be obtained. Several months of intense consultation were undertaken with the Environment Agency for Wales, the Marine Consents Unit, the Countryside Council for Wales and the environmental departments of local councils during which the sensitivity issues of the area concerned were addressed.

The surrounding area was also designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) as it is an important wildfowl overwintering site, regularly supporting over 20,000 birds. As a result, mitigation measures were taken to minimise disruption by carrying out works such as piling for the foundations of the new structure outside the winter period between November and February. This reduced the potential for any significant impact on bird migration.

As part of the agreement between Network Rail, Cadw (the Welsh Government’s historic environment service) and local authority planning and environmental departments, some of the existing timber trestles will be retained. Four will stay in their original place as part of the new structure, while several others will be re-erected close by as an acknowledgment of the heritage of the viaduct.

Piles and beamsIMG_0732 [online]

The design of the new bridge is for a steel and concrete deck supported on new piers 36 metres apart – three times the span distance of the old structure. Twelve 1200mm diameter permanent steel cased piles will form the foundations for the new structure while six temporary piles will facilitate the launch of the new bridge on the north side of the existing viaduct. In order to minimise disruption in the estuary, Carillion employed a method of installing the piles using cranes and piling rigs situated on jack-up barges which were towed into position by four tugs.

Despite adverse weather conditions throughout the operation, and having to deal with one of the highest tidal ranges in the UK with river flows reaching up to eight knots on high tides, this phase of the works was successfully completed in July 2012.

Constructing the crosshead beams in situ working below the existing structure would have been difficult. It was therefore decided to pre-cast the concrete side panels and lift them into position using a 350 tonne crane working off the jack-up barge. Once in position, the main beam reinforcement was fixed and concreting completed to each crosshead.

On completion of the permanent crosshead beams, temporary steel crossheads and slide rails were constructed to facilitate the launching of the new steel deck sections.

Steel deck – and concrete

The bridge deck also had to be manufactured and placed in position without interfering with either the live railway or the local wildlife. Specialist manufacturer Mabey Bridge held a series of planning meetings with designers Tony Gee and Partners and main contractor Carillion to establish the suitability of steelwork to launch and slide. Design discussions at these initial meetings covered the number of launches, nose and tail design, splice design and positioning.

The main design consideration was that the steelwork had to be detailed to allow it to be launched and then slid sideways into position.

Following agreement on design, Mabey Bridge began a three month programme of fabrication of the 1200 tonnes of structural steelwork and walkways, with a total length of 236 metres, at its modern manufacturing facility in Chepstow, South Wales.

As well as fabrication, Mabey Bridge was contracted to oversee site assembly, including temporary pier cross beams, launch of the structure in four phases and slide.

The finished steelwork was transported to site by road in girder sections each 24 metres long. These were assembled in a laydown area on the west side of the estuary. After the assembly of each of the four phases, the structure was launched over the river onto the temporary piers. Following completion of the launches, in December 2012, the steelwork was jacked down onto its permanent bearings.

Once reinforcement was in place, the concrete deck slab was cast in bays to a designed pour sequence using a mobile concrete boom pump and rigid delivery located on the west and east banks of the estuary. Once cured, the new deck was waterproofed using an approved membrane system.

The track goes on

Ramps at each end of the viaduct were constructed to allow vehicular access. Track ballast was delivered by road and placed on the new deck using rubber- tyred excavators. G44 sleepers and rail is also coming in by road before being placed into position.

Once completed, track protection matting will be placed for the full length of the deck in preparation for access for the demolition of the existing viaduct.

The blockade

The existing bridge will be completely closed for 250 hours between 24 March and 3 April 2013. During this time the existing bridge will be removed and the new structure slid into position on the same track alignment.

Demolition will start with the removal of the existing ballast, rail and deck timbers which will be loaded by excavator and transported from the bridge. The remainder of the bridge, which includes the steel girders and trestles, will be demolished using 65-tonne excavators equipped with mechanically operated shears. These will cut the structural members into short sections for ease of handling and transportation.

SONY DSC

Whilst demolition of the existing bridge is going on, abutment works will be carried out on both the east and west ends of the viaduct. New reinforced concrete abutment base slabs will be cast and pre-cast retaining wall units placed to accommodate the new structure.

When the old structure has been completely removed, the new deck can be slid into place from its resting place on top of the temporary piers. Trial slides will be carried out during possessions in advance of the main blockade to test the slide system, which will consist of semi-continuous pulling rams mounted on brackets attached to the deck and the end of the slide tracks. The hydraulic power packs will be coupled up to a central control. This system allows for differential pressure to be applied to the pulling arms for directional control of the new bridge whilst moving into position. Once in place the new deck will be locked into its final position.

And there it shall remain. Will it carry trains over the River Loughor for 160 years like its predecessor? Only time will tell.

SSS – Sub Surface Signalling

London Underground is 150 years old this year. The first train on the Metropolitan Railway ran between Paddington and Farringdon on 9 January 1863.

Today, the Metropolitan line is one of the four lines that make up the sub-surface railway (SSR), the others being the Circle, District and Hammersmith & City. Although they have been upgraded during the last 150 years, they are still some of the oldest parts of the Tube’s network.

Not surprisingly, with an ageing system, it is difficult to achieve reliability; yet London Underground has the objective to provide not only increased reliability, but also a significant increase in capacity, faster trains and a better service for its customers. It will do this by introducing new state-of-the art trains and a signalling system that enables more frequent services.

Largest signalling contract

Bombardier Transportation was awarded the contract for SSR automatic train control (ATC) signalling upgrade for London Underground in June 2011. The contract, valued at approximately £354 million, is reportedly the largest metro re-signalling contract ever undertaken in the world.

At the heart of the new system is Bombardier’s proven CITYFLO 650 ATC system which uses communication-based train control (CBTC) technology. It is similar to that running successfully on the Metro de Madrid Lines 1 and 6 in Spain, part of one of the busiest networks in Europe where the customer has already noted a 30% increase in passenger carrying capacity with further improvement expected. The same system is also in operation on Shenzhen Metro Line 3 in China, which was delivered in 22 months.Under Test At Old Dalby Image1 [online]

CITYFLO is a moving block system utilising modern radio-based wide area networks to communicate between the control centre and the train. In addition to enabling the system to be installed without interruption to service and to tight timelines, it can provide interoperability with legacy train control systems and can be adapted to accommodate country requirements.

The full scope of the London Underground contract is for the signalling renewal and provision of an ATC system for the four sub- surface lines which carry 1.3 million passengers a day. Together, the lines comprise 40% of the network and carry 25% of the total ridership.

By 2018, Bombardier will equip the 310 km of track line (40 km in tunnels), 113 stations, 191 trainsets, 49 engineering trains and six heritage trains, followed by a two-year warranty period.

New methods – one team

The sheer scale of this project has required London Underground to adapt its processes and requirements to the solution that Bombardier is providing. Matthew Steele, London Underground’s programme delivery manager, explained: “We’ve recognised that we need to be flexible as a customer to enable our suppliers to give us the solutions we need. This is facilitated by our ‘New Engineering Contracts’ (NEC) – a very different way of working – and one that reciprocally incentivises collaboration with our supplier partners.

“The sub-surface railway represents 40% of London Underground’s network. We also have to deal with the age of the system and the need for reliability, which means that we want to ensure that the impact on our customers is kept to a minimum.”

The project teams from LU and Bombardier are co-located one building. Matthew Steele is convinced that this was the correct move to make. “It ensures a spirit of transparency and openness and it helps to integrate all the functions – from the operations team, who understand how the railway operates, to the testing team and through to the maintenance staff who will look after the system down the line.

“There are a lot of inter- dependent projects that all have an impact on each other. So we can’t look at re-signalling, rolling out new trains, or maintaining them as projects in isolation. We have to do all of these things together and recognise that the smallest change can impact upon the other initiatives. We can only deliver if we are monitoring all our interfaces and working collaboratively.”CITYFLO antenna [online]

Minimising risk

“Knowing that London Underground is probably the most complex metro in the world, we ran a comprehensive 18-month selection process before embarking on this project. Bombardier offered a proven product that could deliver the performance that we believe we need. For us it was critically important that the system could be delivered within a challenging timeframe and we gained confidence from the fact that the product is already in use (in Metro de Madrid and Shenzhen).

“Nevertheless, we face different challenges. As well as being a much larger and older system, we have mixed operations such as a shared network with Chiltern Railways and London Overground. It is a complex layout, with junctions – interfacing with the Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. There are, however, similarities, for example, this is a brownfield site and we are reliant on night closure times to test and install the system.”

Measuring success

The project team’s objective is to introduce the full performance of the sub-surface signalling upgrade with minimal closures. Whilst closures will be needed to remodel the key trackwork, disruption to customers will be avoided by applying the fundamental principle of proving the system performance and reliability off-site, both in the factory and at the test track at Old Dalby, before installing it on the railway.

Carrying out testing over the next 18 months at the dedicated 5km Old Dalby test track, near Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire, will ensure that the CITYFLO 650 system completely meets all of London Underground’s requirements. Long term, this will minimise disruption to customers both by reducing the need for closures as well as by proving the reliability and performance before installing on SSR.

“Our objective is to guarantee reliable service on the railway,” Matthew Steele commented. “We will know we have been successful if there is no discernible impact of the upgrade to our customers and when we complete a system that delivers reliability, performance and the customer benefits including the increase in capacity that we defined. We recognise this is no mean feat but we are embracing this challenge to delivery on time and realise the benefit for London.”

Vehicle testing on the GCR

This article is not a historical reminiscence, although the writer is old enough to remember the Great Central Railway (GCR) running passenger trains from Loughborough to London Marylebone in the early 1960s with a journey time of 2 hours. Not bad for steam engine hauled trains having several stops en route.

Readers of this magazine will almost certainly know a great deal about the GCR. Some may have lived through its run-down and closure which began in 1960 with the withdrawal of the Manchester – London expresses and ended with the last remaining Nottingham – Rugby section closing in 1969.

The closure was much lamented by railway enthusiasts for many reasons, partly because it was the only UK mainline railway built
to an expanded loading gauge capable of accommodating larger continental trains in anticipation of a future Channel Tunnel. This was the dream of GCR’s then chairman and driving force, Sir Edward Watkin, who envisaged a new railway line that could be expanded and linked to the continent via a tunnel. Sadly, the closure of the GCR put paid to that, and with 20-20 hindsight we now realise what a dreadful mistake it was. There may even have been a case for part of the old GCR to take the proposed HS2 from London to near Birmingham.

Following the closure of the Nottingham – Rugby section, a group of enthusiasts got together with the aim of keeping at least part of the line open as a heritage railway. Fund raising was a major problem in the early 1970s and this was only resolved when the local Charnwood Borough Council came to the rescue by purchasing the trackbed and associated lands from Loughborough to Belgrave and Birstall (now Leicester North).

During the last four decades, the expertise and dedication of both volunteers and some highly experienced and qualified staff have transformed what was a struggling little concern into one of the UK’s leading heritage railways. The collection of restored stations, signalFIG 9  Class 70 locomotive [online] boxes, carriages, wagons and steam and diesel locomotives are also a tribute to the hard work of those involved.

From 25 to 60 mph

Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI – now the Office of Rail Regulation or ORR)
did not normally permit a heritage or minor railway to operate passenger trains above a speed limit of 25mph as laid down in the Light Railways Act 1896. This speed limit initially prevailed on the GCR. However in 2001, senior officers at GCR realised that there was a business need to utilise their infrastructure to provide a facility for established and potential operators which wanted to carry out testing of railway vehicles and associated components without interference on days when heritage trains were not running.

An application was made to HMRI for a derogation to run trains at up to 60mph to enable such testing to be undertaken. It
was laid down by HMRI that, to permit such running, there should be no public access to the railway, a full track survey would have to be undertaken and appropriate remedial work carried out, GCR should appoint a competent Permanent Way Engineer and a full risk assessment should be drawn up by GCR staff and approved by HMRI.

All these requirements were met and derogation was granted in 2002 which allowed testing at 60mph in perpetuity.

The upgrade from 60 to 75mph running

For many years, brake tests on freight wagons were carried out on the national network, latterly between Crewe and Winsford. Up until 1993, this testing was carried out free of charge to the operator. However, with the run up to privatisation and with track access charges/traction hire/traincrew/test staff, the cost of a test slot escalated sharply to several thousands of pounds.

Following the derogation for 60mph running, the GCR became the preferred site for brake testing by BR Research. The officers of the company quickly realised there was a further business case for upgrading the test line up to 75mph so that new freight wagons could be tested away from the national network at much lower cost and with a more flexible programme.

HMRI (ORR) laid down conditions before GCR were allowed to run test trains at 75mph. Primarily, ORR had to be satisfied that the permanent way was in a fit condition to accept trains with axle loads up to 25 tons at this speed. To this end, all lines along the GCR route were crack detected. This resulted in some repair and remedial work, after which the track was re-tested to ensure that it was in A1 condition. Interestingly, a high-speed rail crack detection vehicle was flown in especially from the USA to carry out this work and was flown back as soon as it was completed.

Many of the conditions laid down for 60mph running were reviewed for the higher speed derogation and a further full risk assessment was also carried out by GCR staff which was approved by ORR. To accredit their drivers to work at 75mph, GCR selected existing qualified 60mph drivers and ran accreditation sessions with them using a volunteer, who is also a Pendolino driver, and was passed to work trains at speeds up to 125mph.

In order to ensure the safety of the public and those carrying out testing duties, all work is carried out under total possession of the line and nobody is allowed at trackside within the possession limits except for essential testing staff. Along the length of the test track, there are no farm crossings, accommodation or footpath crossings. GCR observe high standards of Health and Safety in what can otherwise be at times a hazardous environment.

The first testing at 75mph took place in 2008 involving brake and slip tests on a WH Davis Super Low 45 wagon. Many tests have been carried out since and, although GCR has to apply for a letter of no objection from ORR each time 75mph testing is carried out, to date there have been no problems.

Advantages of the GCR

One of the major problems faced by owners of any form of rolling stock is the ability to have it tested in the UK. Using Network Rail infrastructure is expensive, takes a long time to organise and usually has to be carried out at the most unsocial of times often in the hours of darkness and in some cases, geographically remote from the point of origin of the vehicles to be tested.

As a private railway, the GCR can offer testing facilities at any reasonable time usually within a few days of the first contact. It is located in the East Midlands just a few minutes from Junction 23 of the MI. The railway is eight miles long with five and a half miles of double track. It has gentle curves and shallow gradients (maximum of 1 in 176) and axle loading is the maximum permitted in the UK at 25 tonnes. Access is by road only at present usually at Quorn, three miles south of Loughborough, via a large yard where there is ample room to set up a project base. There are, however, well advanced plans to develop rail access to the national network at Loughborough on the Midland Main Line. The GCR has four stations, a sixty foot turntable, maintenance sheds and one of the finest mechanical signalling schemes in the heritage arena.

Having gained approval to test at 75 mph, GCR has accumulated an impressive list of clients including Network Rail, Balfour Beatty, Amey, Serco, Brush Traction and various overseas organisations. Testing has included mileage accumulation (1000 km in 2 days), braking tests including slip tests at 75mph and noise acceptance trials. The latter was particularly useful to WH Davis back in 2008 when their new Super Low 45 wagon became subject to the requirements of the full EU Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI).

Noise testingFIG 5  Network Rail hybrid technology train [online]

Within the environmental section of the TSI is a requirement for any new vehicle to pass certain parameters in regard to noise generation. At the time, there was no private test track in the UK able to carry out these tests, so Network Rail and GCR jointly set up a noise testing facility. Had this not happened the WH Davis wagon would have had to be transported, at considerable cost, to either Switzerland or Germany or Poland or the Czech Republic for testing which would have resulted in enormous delays in the approval process.

Noise testing is carried out on a specially prepared stretch of continuously welded rail approximately one quarter of a mile long. Noise detection equipment provided by Network Rail stands in a ‘free field’ site, i.e. a location out in the country with minimum external noise sources. As both sides of the vehicle have to be tested, it is turned around on the 60ft turntable that was gifted to GCR by the National Railway Museum and which is located at Quorn.

Brake and slip testing has been carried out in conjunction with disc brake manufacturers so that essential coefficient of friction characteristics can be collated for various compounds used in disc pad manufacture. Tests involving the intentional modification of the wheel/rail interface have been undertaken, examining the effect of different railhead conditions and quantifying measures that can be taken to combat lack of adhesion.

New (old) locomotives

One particularly interesting piece of testing, especially to steam enthusiasts, involved
the Peppercorn A1 Pacific steam locomotive 60163 Tornado. Trials required assessment of wheel impact and loads on the infrastructure, both for the identification of wheelset defects and acceptability of new locos in terms of vertical and horizontal forces. These trials were carried out whilst Tornado was at the GCR for acceptance and running in tests.

GCR have an ongoing training partnership with Vital Rail and others, providing a facility where permanent way trainees can learn their craft ‘hands-on’. Apprentices can get ballast on their boots and receive lessons in track maintenance, inspection or design. Washing and messing facilities are available on site.

GCR has also helped organisations that have required their staff to have realistic driving and operating experience. The four stations provide opportunity to learn braking and control of both light engine and braked trains so as to achieve the correct stopping points. For theory work, classroom facilities are provided and the inner man is catered for by on-site cafes and restaurants providing everything from coffee and biscuits to full meals. Conference rooms are also available for larger or specialist groups.

What does the future hold?

At the time of writing, the other two test tracks in the UK are also fairly busy. Network Rail’s own site at High Marnham has a lower speed limit than the GCR and is also used for testing on-track machinery, while the nearby track at Old Dalby (just a few miles from Loughborough), where the Virgin Pendolinos were commissioned, is now operated by London Underground testing both new
trains and a new signalling system. With the excellent facilities that GCR can offer other customers for both vehicles to be tested and project support staff, their future looks bright.

Resignalling the Victoria Line

Much has been written about the excellent way in which public transport performed during the 2012 London Olympic Games. This was due to detailed planning and to making sure that major improvement projects by both London Underground and Network Rail were completed in advance of the competitors and spectators arriving.

The Rail Engineer has looked at several of those projects. One that it has not was the commissioning by Invensys Rail of the seventh and final asset replacement stage of the Victoria Line Upgrade (VLU) Project, marking the completion of a challenging nine year programme.

Invensys delivered the upgrade in partnership with London Underground (LU) and Bombardier Transportation, the programme seeing the replacement of all the Victoria Line’s rolling stock and signalling and ultimately providing improved headways and journey times. The upgrade programme has delivered a ‘30 trains per hour’ service, providing passengers with faster, more reliable and more comfortable journeys, with week day peak services increasing from 28 to 30 trains per hour and off peak services from 23 to 24 trains per hour.

Overlaying the new system

A little over 13 miles long, the Victoria Line was originally opened in four sections between 1968 and 1972. The line is predominantly formed of a deep level tube tunnel which serves 16 stations with a fleet of 43 trains (37 of which are in service at peak hours).

The design and installation teams for the VLU programme therefore faced a number of significant challenges, the project representing a first for LU in that it required migration from one Automatic Train Operation (ATO) system to another, with Invensys Rail’s Distance to Go-Radio (DTG-R) trackside equipment being overlaid on to the legacy signalling system, transmitting both the new radio messages and legacy track circuit codes during the migration period for the new rolling stock fleets.

Train detection, interlocking and point detection and control continued to be delivered by the legacy signalling system, which also switched and transmitted the legacy Automatic Train Control (ATC) track circuit codes to the 1967 stock trains. Invensys delivered new ATO and Automatic Train Protection (ATP) solutions which were overlaid onto the existing infrastructure and which enabled mixed operation of the original 1967 fleet and new rolling stock. The overlay solution allowed the first of the 47 new Bombardier 09TS trains to start running on the live passenger-carrying railway three years ahead of the final project completion, minimising service disruption throughout the project.

The ATP system provides train protection for over-speed; driving limit enforcement (end of authority) and protection limit enforcement (limit of movement authority), while the ATO

provides automatic driving functionality for control within driving limits, speed and distance; signal stopping and auto-restarting; platform stopping (to within +/- 1 metre of the actual stopping mark) as well as the potential for automatic door opening.

The new 09TS fleet began to enter service in January 2010 and has already accumulated over 10.2 million kilometres of passenger operation. As part of the migration stage, the new Signalling Centre at Osbourne House also took control of the legacy interlockings and the legacy control room, with the control centre commencing continuous operations in January 2011.

Removing the legacy

An asset replacement programme was undertaken by Invensys after the last of the 1967 stock was withdrawn. Over 15 months and seven stage commissionings, the company successfully removed the last of the legacy signalling equipment and installed new WESTLED signals, FS2550 track circuits and a full range of platform equipment. The company’s WESTRACE solution now controls the entire line which is split into 16 interlockings, linked to the signalling control system.

The final stage was delivered over a 27-hour weekend closure in July and saw the commissioning of bi-directional signalling between Seven Sisters and Northumberland Park Depot. New control centre operations were also installed, together with an upgraded version of DTG-R train data, which provides full functionality for control of the entire Victoria Line.

“Migration to the new signalling system presented many challenges, both technical and operational. Keeping the railway running whilst the signalling system was being replaced required a realistic and realisable migration plan, while recognising the constraints on access to the railway. Throughout the project, the Victoria Line remained operational during the day. Access was generally limited to three extended nights per week, plus a number of weekend shutdowns, limiting disruption to passengers and ensuring a smooth transition from the legacy to the new system”, said Invensys Rail’s delivery director, Matt Kent.

“This has been one of the longest, most complex and most challenging projects we have undertaken, but the result is a railway which is delivering significantly improved capacity, performance and reliability for London Underground and its passengers, as well as a greatly improved service for the increasing number of people using the line.”

Seltrac goes Evergreen

The SkyTrain light rapid transit system in Vancouver, Canada, comprises 68.7km (42.7 miles) of track and 47 stations over three lines. The first of these, the Expo line, was opened in 1985 for Expo 86 and was built as a fully-automated system, mostly on elevated structures – hence the name “SkyTrain”.

Automation is achieved using the SelTrac® system from Thales (formerly Alcatel). Since the first such system was installed on the Expo line, SelTrac was also specified for the subsequent Millennium Line (13 stations opened in 2006) and the Canada Line (15 stations in 2009).

Both the Expo and the Millennium lines are operated by the British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC) on behalf of South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, most simply known as TransLink. BCRTC is based at its operations and maintenance centre in Burnaby, BC, where more than 630 dedicated staff work in the areas of administration, engineering, elevator and escalator maintenance, field operations, vehicle maintenance and wayside maintenance.

Evergreen success

The next stage of Vancouver’s metro expansion will be the Evergreen Line – a 10.9km extension that will have six new stations and require major upgrades to two more. As part of that project, Partnerships BC, the British Columbia project management organization, has awarded a contract to Thales to install the SelTrac Communications-based Train Control (CBTC) on the new line.

“Since Signalling the Expo Line in 1985, the first CBTC driverless system in the world, we have also applied our reliable SelTrac CBTC system to both the Millennium Line and Canada Line”, said Michael Mackenzie, vice-president and managing http://www.dreamstime.com/-image13618594director, Thales Canada.

“TransLink and BCRTC can pride itself on operating on one of the longest fully automated systems in the world. They are recognised world leaders in rail transit and, throughout the decades, Vancouver’s SkyTrain remains a well-respected system amongst urban rail operators globally. It continues to draw interest from operators considering implementing a driverless CBTC system”.

Thales’ CBTC system has been proven worldwide on over 55 projects to date and operates on over 1,300 km of track in major urban centres around the world carrying an estimated 3 billion passengers annually.

Docklands Jubilee

Thales’ successful SelTrac CBTC system is also in operation in the UK. It has been installed since 1994 on the Docklands Light

Railway (DLR), which reported its highest-ever passenger numbers during London 2012, up by more than 100 per cent on normal levels. Its busiest day saw more than half-a-million passengers use the service for the first time in its history and it maintained a success rate for on-time departures of better than 99 per cent throughout the Games – testament to the excellent delivery record of the Thales signalling system.

The Jubilee Line on the underground also operates using SelTrac technology, and it too has demonstrated excellent performance – it successfully transported millions of people during the Olympics and recorded three successive days of zero delays over the Games period, its biggest ever test to date.

With this successful pedigree, Thales UK will no doubt continue to propose its world-leading SelTrac technology for future signalling upgrade schemes in the urban rail environment.

Why is innovation so difficult in railways?

Railways, and signalling in particular, are generally not well regarded for being innovative. Talented job applicants with a high-tech background, such as software engineering, are predictably surprised when told that mechanical computers (i.e. interlockings) are still widespread in the railway system. Even if not a mainstream technology, relay-based interlockings are still regarded by some as “modern”, and in certain respects are even considered to be superior to ones based on electronics.

To an outside observer who is familiar with the fascinating potential of modern technology, the pace of innovation in railways might well be perceived to lag behind other industries just a bit too much. This observation applies not only to signalling but also to the speed of change in railway telecommunications when compared with commercial and consumer networks.

Mechanical computers

When railways were first introduced, they represented an industry where cutting edge innovation occurred. For instance, when the first mechanical interlocking was installed in 1843 at Bricklayers’ Arms Junction in south London, it was in fact a state-of- the art logic computer, occurring at a time when Charles Babbage was working on his mechanical computing machines.

The mechanical technology for conquering arithmetic problems is long gone, yet mechanical interlockings are still here.

So it is reasonable to ask the seemingly simple question – why is that? Why are mechanical interlockings still being renovated?

If, in fact, there is a business case for such an activity (compared with using lean IT technology with its associated potential for efficiency improvement in operating the overall system), then should we not ask if something has gone wrong with the innovation process in railways, and if so what and why?

Innovation or invention?

To avoid confusion about what is meant precisely by ‘innovation’ for the purpose of this article; we should distinguish between ‘innovation’, ‘invention’, and ‘technological development/improvement’. For the remainder of this article, the following definition and distinction is adopted:

“Innovation is the development of different or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Latin – innovare: to change) rather than doing the same thing better.”

No one would claim that there is a general absence of innovation (or inventions or technological improvement for that matter) in railways. The European Train Control System (ETCS), Positive Train Control and Speed Advisory Systems for instance, can clearly be considered as being innovations, based on various inventions and making use of general technological development.

To illustrate the differing ways in which innovation is perceived, some people consider that relay-based and electronic interlockings are just “doing the same thing better” than mechanical ones. Others point out that the range of safety functions implemented in modern software-based interlockings, for example relating to overlap and flank protection, is much more advanced; not to mention the potential for improved efficiency by remote control and automation that they offer. They would therefore claim that these advances are ‘innovative’ according to the definition given above.

A question of scale

There is one factor above all others that governs the speed of introduction of innovation on rail systems, namely the ‘scale’ on which the innovation has to be applied in order to be worthwhile. Thus, for instance, Disneyland (pictured right) had moving block in the 1970s; and2512325489_a80219d0f5_o [online] some metro systems have driverless trains. But these are localised applications.

These advances have occurred not because the engineers in those areas are any better or more innovative than signal engineers working on large railway networks. On the contrary, one could argue that maintaining a large quantity of heterogeneous technology across a large and distributed infrastructure network with such a high level of safety and reliability is an art mastered by no other engineering discipline to the same extent. The longevity of mechanical interlockings could be claimed as proof of the signal engineer’s far-sighted design, rather than being a criticism.

It is however apparent that the scale (size) of a railway network, and the large number of people/bodies that need to be aligned in order to introduce any change, seem to pose more challenges to the innovation process than in other contexts where localised innovation is possible. A further difficulty with innovation may be that railways are a mature industry, so that innovations do not easily offer returns on the investment made.

In addition, there appears to be a number of more subtle reasons for the failure of innovative ideas in our engineering domain, including:

  1. The new idea does not fit with the existing (often aged) infrastructure;
  2. The new idea does not fit with the culture of the corresponding railway/country;
  3. The new idea does not fit with existing regulations and operational procedures;
  4. The idea does not meet a real need, in the opinion of railway experts;
  5. The originators of the idea are not trustworthy and/or do not have the right background, in the opinion of railway experts;
  6. The originators of the idea (or the organisation they work for) are not considered to be likely to be around for long enough to support the innovation through its whole life cycle, right through to obsolescence (50 years or more);
  7. In the opinion of railway managers, there might be no business case for the idea;
  8. There might be a business case on the global level, but local application within a fragmented industry prevents the potential benefits from being realised;
  9. The market potential is seen too small for investment by railway suppliers, because the application circumstances differ too much from country to country;
  10. The idea is innovative at a component level, but there are no standardised non-proprietary interfaces to enable replacement of the old version with the new one, without renovating the systems of several other suppliers at the same time;
  11. Safety approvals appear too difficult to obtain, or there are other liability issues that cannot be overcome;
  12. No sensible roadmap can be constructed upgrading the entire network.

Having established this list of plausible reasons for the failure of new ideas to reach the implementation phase, the fact that innovation appears to lag behind in the railway industry seems less surprising.

However at the strategic level, it should be clear to all stakeholders that any system that consistently lags behind in its application of technology will lose its competitiveness sooner or later and hence either be removed from the surface of the Earth or be banished to the museums at best!

Given the current cost base of the rail industry, one main goal of innovation must be to lower the whole life cycle cost of systems and thereby make change more attractive.

No better elsewhere

As stated earlier, it isn’t suggested that engineers in other comparable industry sectors are better than those in our own. On the contrary, other systems that comprise a large collection of existing infrastructure, such as air traffic control, seem to have similar struggles. For instance, the introduction of new generations of transponders into aircraft fleets takes some 40 years. In comparison, the 20 or so years that it took for ETCS to move from concept to its first reasonably efficient introduction in a project (the Lötschberg Base Tunnel in Switzerland) seems surprisingly fast.

Cleary, no one can imagine a quick technological, “i-phone-like” revolution in railways. On the other hand, it is essential that evolutionary innovation should and must be possible. True innovation needs a clear vision as to how we want to operate our railways and rail transit systems in the future, and needs pioneers/champions committed to take on the challenge of delivering that vision fast enough so that the investments pay off.

Lötschberg_Tunnel [online]Looking again at the ‘12 reasons’ stated above, it should be obvious that we need to distinguish between ‘valid reasons’ that hinder innovation – intrinsic and unavoidable in the system “railway” – and ‘other reasons’ which would cease to obstruct innovation if the right structural changes were made at the strategic level. For example, considerable progress with the standardisation of interfaces in road traffic control systems (see reason 10 above) – another strong competitor of the railway – seems to have been made already. If, as a consequence of such advances, this reason was no longer to apply in the rail sector, it might also remove other obstacles (such as reasons 1, 6, 8, 11).

Based on this example it seems worthwhile establishing a more comprehensive list of reasons for the relative scarcity of innovation in the rail industry and performing a cause-consequence analysis in order to understand the underlying mechanisms better. However, that would be part of the next step – answering the question “How do we make railways more innovative?” – which lies beyond the scope of this article.

Some people might argue that this in nothing new and that there are other underlying obstacles to innovation. For instance, during the development of ETCS, the standardisation of interfaces on the vehicle had been proposed but was declined by the industry, suggesting that the difficulties with innovation may also be attributed in part to conflicts of interests. This may be true, but nevertheless a fundamental review of the mechanisms of innovation in our industry still seems to be a crucial step for long-term success.

Clearly, no single stakeholder in the rail industry would be able to remove a sufficient number of hindrances to innovation. Therefore it would seem necessary for governmental agencies, railway companies, suppliers and research bodies to collaborate and to establish roadmaps for removing obstacles for innovation in the railways, while taking into account the particular interests of each group.

Edited on behalf of the International Technical Committee of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) by Dr Markus Montigel, CEO of Systransis AG, Switzerland, and published with the permission of the Editor of IRSE NEWS and the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers.

Trams to New Street

Next month will see the opening of the new section of concourse at Birmingham New Street station. This will be the first major public milestone in the Birmingham Gateway project, the progress of which THE RAIL ENGINEER has covered for the last few years.

However, New Street is not the only major transport project underway in Britain’s second city, although the two are very much linked. The £128 million extension to the Midland Metro moves into its next stage at Easter with the temporary closure of the line. Principal contractor Balfour Beatty is taking the opportunity to enlarge platforms on the network, in readiness for the new fleet of trams that will enter service late in 2014.

Today’s network

Currently, the Midland Metro runs from Wolverhampton to Birmingham over a 12.5 mile route which largely uses the trackbed of the former Great Western Railway line from Wolverhampton Low Level to Birmingham Snow Hill. The first two stops in Wolverhampton are conventional, street- based tram halts, but the line then joins the old GWR route at Priestfield. From there, the

Metro follows the old GWR route exactly, with tram stops replacing the original intermediate stations, through three tunnels, over four canals and under the M5 to Birmingham Snow Hill.

Opened in 1999, the line is run by a fleet of sixteen T69 trams made by AnsaldoBreda in Italy. The 24.5 metre long vehicles have a capacity of 158 people (56 seated) and a top speed of 43mph.

Extension

Plans for the Birmingham City Centre Extension were first proposed in 2005. This would take the tracks through the city centre to Five Waystram3 [online] Island on the ring road at the far end of Broad Street. After a brief look into the cost of building an underground railway instead, found to be prohibitive, a scaled-down version of the plan was adopted in late 2008.

The extension will branch off between St Pauls and Snow Hill station. A new stop, still called Snow Hill, will be constructed on the existing railway viaduct at Livery Street/Lionel Street. From there, the extended line will take in stops at Bull Street and Corporation Street before reaching the new terminus at Stephenson Street, alongside Birmingham New Street station – a total extra distance of 0.8 miles.

More vehicles will be needed to run the extended service and, rather than adding a few new ones, Birmingham City Council decided
to replace the entire fleet. Twenty Urbos 3 trams have been ordered from Spanish manufacturer CAF, similar models to the ones recently supplied to Edinburgh. Longer than the originals, with the capacity increased to 200, each five-section air-conditioned tram has two dedicated spaces for wheelchair users and its features will be fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. In addition, each section will have passenger information and CCTV information and protection. The £40 million contract includes an option for a further five vehicles.

Easter closure

So, back to the work that is taking place at Easter. The line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton will be shut after the last tram on Good Friday (March 29) and reopen on Monday April 15 to allow engineers to modify existing platforms to accommodate the fleet of larger trams. When these enter service, the current route during 2014 they will enable Centro, the region’s transport authority, to increase the system’s frequency to 10 trams an hour throughout the day. This will increase capacity by 40 per cent, easing the overcrowding that can sometimes occur during the morning peak.

All the new trams will be running by 2015 when the extension opens. Before then, and after the platform works are completed, the new track will be laid through the city’s streets. Already, Stephenson Street is closed to traffic as services are diverted in preparation for the track-laying works. However, laying tracks on Corporation Street, used by over 140 buses an hour during peak periods, will certainly be a challenge for the project team.

New signalling will be needed, in a contract yet to be let by Balfour Beatty, and this will be controlled from the existing signalling centre at Wednesbury.

Any £128 million project is significant. Only because the new extension is overshadowed by the £600 million refurbishment of Birmingham New Street station has it not had the coverage it might have. But The Rail Engineer is on the case, and will publish further details as they develop.

The Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge

The construction of Phase Two of Nottingham’s tram network has been going on for a while, but much of it has been hidden from view. Now, though, there are some exciting developments that, for the first time, show clearly that the project is well on the way. The most visible of these is an iconic new bridge which has appeared adjacent to Nottingham railway station.

First of all – a bit of background. Councillor Jane Urquhart, portfolio holder for Planning and Transport at Nottingham City Council, has been involved with NET since she was first elected to the Council in 2000. She became closely acquainted with the construction of the first line between Hucknall/M1 junction 26 and Nottingham railway station. This was not without its controversies at the time, but has since become a great success. Jane says that even some of its strongest detractors have come to see that it was actually a good idea after all!

Learning for success

Jane feels that important lessons were learned during the construction of Line One. These included the necessity of getting closely involved with the detail of local issues, the importance of providing easily accessible information in large quantities by diverse means of distribution on a frequent basis, and the need to be prepared to adjust the scheme details and programme when this is required to overcome local issues. There are definitely some pointers here for other controversial projects (HS2 anyone?).

In Jane’s opinion, Line One has been a resounding success. Since its opening, all other local public transport modes have seen increased growth rates in addition to the new traffic on the trams themselves. NET Phase Two will build upon this success, adding key destinations including Queen’s Medical Centre, the University of Nottingham, Clifton, Beeston town centre, Chilwell and M1 junctions 24 and 25 to the tram network.

The city council is part-funding both the new tram lines and the current improvement works at Nottingham railway station from its Nottingham tram [online]workplace parking levy. In December 2011, Nottingham City Council awarded the Net Phase Two contract to Tramlink as part of a twenty-five year PFI (private finance initiative) concession. Construction is being delivered by a joint venture between Taylor Woodrow and Alstom. Some 600 people are currently being employed in connection with NET Phase Two, so it is an important source of local employment.

Future developments

Nottingham City intends to add further transport network improvements in the future. There are ambitions to take forward further tramlines – the original feasibility studies in the 1990s considered six or seven possible lines and there is potential to go ahead with these or shorter extensions to existing lines in the future. In Kimberley there is already a campaign for the existing Line One to be extended there.

The council is interested in the tram/train concept, which is seen as offering possibilities for extending services outside the tram network onto some of the under used (or indeed unused) ‘heavy rail’ lines in and around the City. Also, fully integrated electronic ticketing covering all modes is a firm objective.

Asked about the possibility of an East Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, Councillor Urquhart said that Nottingham City Council is already a partner in a local enterprise partnership with the County Council and their equivalents from Derby and Derbyshire. This is recognised by Government and good relationships are being built. There is seen to be potential for extending this to cover the whole of the East Midlands by agreeing to join up with Leicester City and Leicestershire County councils.

One of the termini of the two new tram lines that make up Phase Two is at Toton, close to the newly- announced HS2 hub. Naturally, Cllr Urquhart, Tramlink chief executive Phil Hewitt, and Martin Carroll, NET Phase Two project director for the Taylor Woodrow Alstom joint venture, are all very enthusiastic about the prospect of connecting this into the NET network. The hub will be within the area of Broxtowe Borough Council, but there is likely to be close co-operation between the two councils to ensure that the relatively short link could be constructed. Indeed, the view appeared to be that the tram might get to the hub site before HS2 itself!

Back to the bridge

Martin and his structures expert Andy Bannier described the important features of the Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge and its construction. The key players in the works are the Joint Venture (JV), together with Cleveland Bridge Engineering and Mammoet. The first half of the bridge recently appeared high above ground level on a site at Crocus Street on the Queen’s Road side of Nottingham Station. Visible over a wide area, it is the most obvious indication of the progress of NET Phase Two. When completed, the bridge will be 104 metres in length and 14.5 metres wide.

Because of the restricted size of the erection site, it was only possible to assemble one half of the Warren Truss structure. This was slid some 50 metres towards its final position in order to free up the site for the erection of the other half of the truss. The two will then be connected before the whole thing is slid the rest of the way to its final resting place.

Two permanent piers to support the bridge have been constructed between Queen’s Road and platform 6 of the Station and between platform 1 and Station Street. A third, central pier is under construction within the listed station buildings on Platforms 4 and 5. This has meant removal of part of the roof, and has been closely supervised by the authorities because of the listed status of the buildings.

New bridge – old alignment

The new bridge will sit on the exact line of its predecessor, the old Great Central Railway bridge, removed in the early 1980s. Two of the foundation caissons of the old bridge are being re-used to provide part of the support to the new structure, although they have had to be strengthened with mini-piles. The remaining foundation loads will be carried by CFA (continuous flight auger) piles.

Like the old Great Central bridge, the new one will be flanked by two smaller bridges, one over Station Street and the other over Queen’s Road. The site hoardings are decorated with aerial photographs of the old structures, an interesting comparison with the new works now taking shape.

The sliding of the first half of the bridge started on the night of Monday 11 February 2013 and continued each night of that week up until completion just over a week later. The bridge finished up spanning Queen’s Road at the end of this phase of the slide. To that effect it had been erected horizontally at a level 7.3 metres above that of the road. When the full bridge reaches its final resting place across the Station, it will be lowered somewhat and will be on a gradient, in order to match up with the existing tram viaduct on the city side and the new works to be built on the other side of the station. In total the bridge will have moved by around 100 metres horizontally when it is finally in place.

The design of the structure has had a significant effect on the sliding design, due to the significant stresses arising from the temporary support conditions involved.

During the second slide it needs to span 52 metres across the station between permanent supports, although temporary trestle piers are being used at intermediate points to reduce the gaps encountered during the first slide across Queen’s Road. The forces generated at the temporary points of support will be very high. The tubes of the trusses are 711mm in diameter and have 40mm wall thickness and, although they were hot rolled for greater strength, they can still only be propped within 1.3 metres either side of each of the truss nodes as propping elsewhere along the bottom boom tubes would overstress the structure. Station-Street-Colour-2 [online]

Japanese steel

Steelworks sub-contractor Cleveland Bridge Engineering had a choice of only two rolling mills worldwide that could hot roll steel tubes of the required thickness and diameter, one in Korea and the other in Japan. The latter were successful in winning the order.

The strength issue meant it was not possible to install the 250mm thick reinforced concrete deck nor the tram tracks prior to the sliding operations, since this would have overstressed the bridge during the slide. However, during the second stage slide, significant counterweight will be needed at the rear end of the bridge to balance it as it cantilevers between supports at its front end. This weight will be provided by installing the rear quarter of the deck, meaning that the total weight of the structure being slid will be around 1100 tonnes and be 104 metres long!

The size of the trusses of the bridge obviously precludes bringing them to site in one piece from the fabrication shop. Smaller sections have therefore been brought and joined on site. This means welding connections on site and painting the affected areas on site afterwards. Cleveland Bridge is taking responsibility for all of this, including the painting in the shop and on site.

Lifting and sliding

Sub-contractor Mammoet is in charge of the specialist lifting and sliding operations, and has also supplied some of the specialist craneage required for the site erection works. Taylor Woodrow has coordinated and managed the temporary works.

At each permanent or temporary support pier there eis a PTFE coated bearing plate under each of the two bottom booms of the bridge. While the bridge is being slid, its weight is taken at each of these points by a sliding saddle, shaped to fit the tubular section of the booms. The saddles sit and slide on the baseplates, which are sufficiently long to allow a slide of 2.6 metres to be made.

Once a slide has been completed it is necessary to return the saddles to the start of the baseplates so that a further 2.6 metre slide may begin. To permit this, at each baseplate there are two movable jacking supports. These can be placed anywhere on the baseplate to be clear of the sliding saddle and within the permitted part of the bottom boom. They contain jacks which lift the truss clear of the sliding saddles so that these can be relocated as required. It was anticipated that relocating all of the sliding saddles in this manner would take around an hour. Once this has been completed, the slide can recommence for the next 2.6 metres.

To reduce the loadings on the bridge as it cantilevers between supports 52 metres apart, a 13 metre long launch nose has been added to its front end. This means that the relatively light nose lands on the next pier some 13 metres before the main truss and transfers some of the weight to the pier as it reaches it. Consideration was given to building a nose that would also serve as the permanent structure, or at least a part of it, for the Station Street bridge. Unfortunately this did not prove to be a practical or economic idea.

The completed bridge will carry twin tram tracks with 3 metre wide public walkways on each side of them. It will form a key part of the interchange arrangements between the rail station, the new tram stop between Queen’s Road and platform 6 and the bus stops on Queen’s Road. This iconic structure will highlight the NET system and the progressive ambitions of the City of Nottingham.

Shorterm Group secures future of Kehoe

Kehoe Rail Services called in the administrators earlier this year after a long trading history providing rail services to a host of key infrastructure clients, including Network Rail, London Underground and mainstream construction workers.

Paul Kehoe, owner of Kehoe Rail Services was already in advanced discussions with Shorterm Group – a leading specialist recruiter and supplier of technical staff, professional engineers, skilled trades staff, and commercial and industrial workers – regarding a merger, when the funding position of Kehoe altered dramatically.

Operating under tight time frames, the Shorterm Group was able to obtain the licence, securing the future of the contract workforce now operating their payroll.

To provide security not just to Kehoe’s clients but also the back office staff, Shorterm is now employing all back office and support staff.

This has been a seamless transfer and has not resulted in a single failure for any of Kehoe’s staff, clients or contractors.

Paul Kehoe said: “Having already selected Shorterm Group as our partner in 2012, I am able to be confident that this arrangement is the right one for our business, our clients are protected, our contractors are being paid and our staff are not facing redundancy.

“I look forward to a long future with the Shorterm Group.”

Steve Gallucci, chief executive of Shorterm Group, said: “Operating this business complements our existing rail offerings ensuring our clients a full service, even in highly-specialist sectors. It complements our business model and we are delighted to have Paul and his team on board already.”

High demand for innovative safety solutions

Safety is of critical importance to the rail industry as a whole, from senior management downwards. However, it can also be good for business. Sheffield-based rail safety expert Zonegreen says the demand for innovative safety solutions is helping drive the company’s product expansion in the UK and abroad.

For example, a state-of-the-art Points Convertor, designed to improve safety, efficiency and traceability in railway maintenance and storage depots, has been launched by the company in response to demand for a cost-effective automated solution.

More safety, less physical effort

The system improves safety and efficiency in railway depots and sidings and allows the automation and remote operation of manually-operated switches and crossings. It can be controlled by an operator from a remote location using a portable device. This removes the need for an individual to have to negotiate difficult terrain, rails or other potential hazards, so minimising the risk of slips, trips and falls. Now the shunter can operate the points from a safe distance, reducing risk and lowering the accident rate.

As well as assisting in the prevention of accidents, a system such as the Zonegreen Points Convertor also greatly reduces the significant physical strains that shunters face with regards to operating points manually and the lasting damage this can do to the body, particularly the back and neck.

Zonegreen’s technical director Christian Fletcher explained: “The system is made up of two parts – a points convertor device and an intuitive handset that allows the operator to remotely control the points system.

“The convertor attaches to an existing, manually-operated switch without compromising the integrity of the existing mechanism and, IMG_5521 [online]crucially, it requires no civil works or changes to operating procedures.”

Tony Hague, managing director of Zonegreen, said that the company is delighted to keep expanding the quality and number of its safety technology products worldwide.

“Quality, safety and reliability are at the core of our company values. By developing long-term working relationships with our clients, we ensure our products consistently meet the highest standards of safety,” Hague said.

The Rail Engineer is good for business

Zonegreen’s continuous presence in articles and editorials in the rail engineer has attracted widespread interest in the company’s products and reinforced its commitment to the rail market. Sales and marketing executive Alex Rocataliata, who runs the marketing side of the business, explains how the rail engineer represents good value for money for technology companies such as Zonegreen.

“We’ve been supporting this magazine since it started 100 issues ago, and we found it to be an extraordinarily good way of communicating with railway engineers and consultants in the UK. As a business driven by technology and innovation, we concentrate on building great and innovative products for our customers.

“An important part of creating a good solution is being able to tell people about it, and to make sure everyone understand the technology and how it can help them to improve safety, efficiency and performance. Rail companies tend to struggle to bring new products into the market, partly because they find it difficult to communicate the benefits of their offering to their customers

“There’s a lot of noise out there. There are way too many magazines and engineers sometimes find it hard to distinguish between them. the rail engineer focuses primarily on understanding the rail industry and its problems and strives to have a positive impact on people and companies. That’s why it is so good, because it focuses on what’s important for us.”