Electrification – A Critical Analysis

28th November 2011

Electrified railways have been around since the 1890s and the predicted advantages of efficiency, speed and cleanliness have largely been realised.

But what has been learned about electric traction and infrastructure since that time that can make today’s electrification schemes easier to implement and better value for money?

The annual IET Railway lecture on 3 Nov was given by Peter Dearman, Head of Network Electrification in Network Rail and a long term railwayman. Peter presented an analysis on how electrification has developed over the years and outlined the critical factors that will impact in the future.

The UK in Retrospect

Britain’s first railway electrification scheme (Volks Railway at Brighton being an exception) was introduced by the London Brighton & South Coast Railway in 1909 using overhead line technology at 6.7kV 25 Hz AC for their London suburban lines.

This should have set the scene for the future. However the rival London & South Western Railway, having seen the Manchester to Bury line of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway electrified on the 1200V side contact third rail system and being influenced by the adjacent District Line fourth rail top contact system, opted for a 660v third rail system for its suburban lines out of Waterloo. The first sections opened in 1915.

The First World War stopped both these systems being enlarged although piecemeal expansions continued when peace came. The two railways became part of the Southern Railway under the Grouping of 1923 and the SR took the decision to standardise on the third rail system. The LBSC overhead system was dismantled and the lines converted.

With the benefit of hindsight this was the wrong decision and the railways of Southern England have had to live with this legacy ever since.

Nothing much else happened in the rest of the UK during the depression years, which may have been fortuitous as Britain was spared the multiplicity of different systems that emerged across Europe.

Eventually, the London & North Eastern Railway embarked on the electrification of the Liverpool St to Shenfield and Southend suburban line and planned for its cross Pennine route from Sheffield to Manchester.

These were to employ the 1500V overhead line DC system which was finding favour in France and had previously been used by the North Eastern Railway for a freight line. Again, war intervened but eventually both projects were completed by the early 1950s.

The emergence of 25kV 50Hz overhead systems in the 1950s was to prove a godsend, for the system allowed almost unlimited power as well as being much simpler in terms of distribution and control.

All UK schemes since then have adopted this standard except for some Southern Region expansions using third rail.

The rate of roll out has been poor compared to Europe with only the West Coast, East Coast and some suburban lines being converted.

System Pros and Cons

Whilst the third rail system is supposed to be cheap to install (it not requiring the erection of masts and gantries), the need for frequent substations and sectioning cabins, AC feeder cables and rectifiers to obtain the DC power, and complex control arrangements makes the system far more costly than one would think.

Couple this with the limited amount of power than can be safely extracted from the system and the large losses that are incurred by both infrastructure and traction make it an unattractive proposition. Although visually less intrusive, a power rail at ground level is always a safety hazard.

1500V DC overhead is better but suffers from the same weaknesses of needing rectification and limited power output. All remaining UK lines of this voltage have since been converted to 25kV.

So is 25kV the perfect answer? It has become a world standard but the configuration of the system from the 1960s era is in need of modernisation to a) improve the loss factors, b) to interface the system with modern grid practices and c) to make the mechanical parts of the system more reliable and less susceptible to damage.

25kV Design Today

The railway is now busier than ever with more trains being run, each of them consuming more power than previous designs.

The electrification system needs to supply this power demand but given that the volts and amps cannot be varied, the only means of delivering improved efficiency is to reduce the impedance of the system thereby minimising losses.

In earlier times, booster transformers and return conductors were necessary to minimise interference into adjacent copper telecommunications cables, both railway and third party owned.

This worsened the impedance of the system and the electrification engineer installed these devices somewhat grudgingly. With the widespread use of fibre cables, this requirement has gone away and thus booster transformers no longer form part of a modern 25kV design.

The grid supply system has to be part of the efficiency enhancement challenge. In the 1960s the fault current on an overhead line short circuit was limited by grid power availability and technology.

A new design of 4Ω supply transformer has allowed a significant lowering of impedance with consequential rise in fault current from 6kA to 12kA.

This has necessitated the development of high speed circuit breakers but the energy levels under fault conditions are very high. The single phase railway system has never been popular with the grid supply companies as it tends to unbalance grid conditions.

To minimise this, the power supply points are now normally located at 400kV grid access points rather than 132kV. In turn this allows greater distances between feeder stations, which, whilst fewer of them are needed, the impedance of the system from that supply point is worsened.

It becomes a trade off between less equipment but lower electrical efficiency.

To get more power from the system, the use of auto transformers in a 25-0-25kV configuration (sometimes referred to as 50kV) has some advantages and is almost universally used on today’s high speed lines. However in practice, faults and short circuit conditions are found to be more commonplace and the effects are worse.

The way forward for supplying power is the advent of the ‘smart grid’ plus a much closer relationship with the power supply companies.

The traditional approach of having large generating capacity from a small number of fossil fuelled power stations is on the way out, with only nuclear energy being used for such stations in the future.

The growing use of renewable energy sources, be it wind, solar or tidal, will mean a much more distributed series of supply points.

Coupling this to intelligent network control will lead to cost and reliability benefits. Train energy demand is dependent on the number of trains and the speed at which they are travelling.

Some means of using stored energy for high demand periods makes sense and this is where renewable sources, with their inherent battery storage systems, will come into their own.

Losses and Train Design

The business case for electrification needs a re-think. The price of diesel fuel is now an inhibitor but this in itself is not enough.

Electric traction pricing must become cheaper and, to achieve this, system losses must be reduced. An AC system should be capable of having losses of between 3-5%. The worst situation is with the ex-SR third rail DC network.

This legacy from the past has often been examined for conversion to 25kV but the cost has always been too high. However the energy equation is such that a new study is underway and the results are looking more hopeful.

With the wide availability of dual voltage traction, the changeover can be renewal led, probably working from the extremities inwards so that removal of all the third rail kit can be achieved on a line by line basis. It will take many years to happen but it seems to be feasible

Trains are now heavier and more power hungry, which is the reverse to what has happened in the air and automotive industries.

The analogy is that applying the train design trend to cars, a Ford Focus would weigh 4 tons and have a fuel efficiency of 12.5mpg. Improved passenger facilities such as air conditioning are only part of the problem.

Crashworthiness is a major factor and the standards need to be challenged. The advent of TPWS and the declared future with ERTMS has almost eliminated the risk of collisions, although it is acknowledged that level crossing road vehicle crashes still pose a threat.

Traction drives and air conditioning systems need to be made more efficient. Bogies are still reminiscent of a Sherman tank. Take a look at Shinkansen and see what can be done.

The Future and More Questions

The first thrust must be to get better control and distribution of the electric power transmission network with energy management being done properly. Equally it is recognised that overhead line infrastructure must be made more reliable.

Instances of the wires being brought down are far too numerous and a better design will emerge for the forthcoming GW and NW projects based upon best European practice.

Another challenge will be the raw material to be used. The world’s copper supply is expected to be exhausted in 15 years. Quite what will replace it is an unknown although recycling existing copper infrastructure will become more important.

Convincing the freight operators to use more electric traction may be difficult as wiring sidings is not a practical option. Again some form of on-board energy storage technology will likely be the answer.

The whole industry has to look at electrification on a unified basis. Peter Dearman must be thanked for this fascinating insight into the electrification debate.

Railway Engineering – Efficiency and Opportunity

22nd November 2011

Bill Reeve is the latest Chairman of the IMechE Railway Division (formerly the Institution of Locomotive Engineers) so he is well placed to give a critical view of the engineering element within the rail industry. The rail engineer went along to hear his Chairman’s address.

Bill started his career as a rolling stock BR sponsored student, holding various T&RS depot posts once qualified. He then became involved with the train-load freight business and gained an insight on railway finances that most engineers never get to understand.

Following a spell at the SRA, Bill is now the Commercial Director for Transport Scotland, a senior civil servant with a considerable cheque book.

Theer is no better person, therefore, to give the railway engineering community some home truths and to challenge the present situation with engineering costs.

Why are costs high?

The starting point is that UK rail costs are about 1.8 higher than the European norm. Why should this be? In 1980, engineering costs were about half of the total railway operating cost base – Civils 20%, M&EE 24% and S&T 6%.

In the BR business led railway which Bill joined, a direct connection between revenue and cost was established.

If a scheme was to proceed, it had to pay its way. Notable achievements between 1981 and 1987 were the reduction of real maintenance and overhaul costs in Regional Railways from £102 million to £44 million allied to the introduction of Sprinters which reduced the fleet size by 55%.

The introduction of Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) signalling in Scotland for the Far North line cost £400,000 to provide and saved £500,000 in operating costs during the first year.

The Public Service Obligation grant fell in real terms from £1.3 billion in 1983 to £650 million in 1990.

A culture of economy made business and engineering managers understand their objectives. Trainload Coal was BR’s most profitable sector and it charged its customers what the business would bear.

With revenue of £249 million and fully allocated costs including infrastructure of £89 million, it provided a contribution of £160 million to general rail funds.

Intermodal freight

The situation with Intermodal freight was very different. The road rate price for moving a container 250 miles was £240; to compete with this, rail had transhipment and delivery costs at loading / unloading points of £140, leaving a maximum of £100 cost for moving the container.

The only way to make this pay was for a train of 48 containers, less than that meant a loss.

Regrettably with infrastructure unable to handle efficient train lengths or 9’6” containers, this scenario could often not be realised.

With the coming of EWS and a policy of reducing costs and aggressive marketing, an upsurge in rail freight occurred.

The advent of the Class 66 freight loco was a major factor in cost reduction. However, separating management of cost from revenue was not a winning formula and even the profitable coal business went through a period of loss.

Railtrack’s estimate for enhancing routes to take 9’ 6” containers was upwards of £650 million.

With the annual Intermodal turnover of £150 million, this was a poor investment. To get 9’6” containers from Felixstowe, the UK’s biggest container port, to the West Midlands and the North West via Peterborough needed gauge widening work costing £180 million.

Via London was only £30 million and was also an electrified route all the way. Unsurprisingly, the chosen option was via London.

Privatisation = increased cost

With privatisation, the rail scene changed completely. Government support rose from £1.6 billion in 1999 to £4 billion in 2002. Many examples of disconnected thinking between project teams and actual need could be cited. Two such instances were:

On the WCML upgrade at Warrington, a trailing crossover needed to be renewed. The standard called for UIC specified rail to be used in place of the former 113lb rail.

This meant a new track geometry, which would not fit the existing space so a remodelling programme had to be planned. The cost would have been enormous. When a more detailed analysis was undertaken, it emerged that the crossover was never used.

A power upgrade was needed on the Southern network when the new Electrostar trains were introduced as they are 14% heavier than the previous 4CIG and 4VEP stock.

The perceived power requirement for the Brighton area increased from 10MW to 22.5MW, which was found to be way overstated when the predictions were compared with actual measurement.

The whole scheme had originally been estimated at £100 million but escalated to £1.2 billion before being scaled back to £652 million.

If the engineering of the whole system, including the weight of the new trains, had been properly specified in the first place a true cost of between £100-200M would have resulted.

The lessons slowly learned were that project teams must understand the value of the traffic, be given incentives aligned to the whole railway business, challenge standards if existing ones are inappropriate and realise that measurement beats modelling.

Controlling costs

The cost problem affects all disciplines. The cheapest provision of a new siding is when the connecting points are hand operated and is most expensive when they are controlled by a computer-based interlocking.

The emerging cost of ERTMS schemes could increase still further the cost of providing new rail connections and thus new business. Interoperability problems and software management, even the space and power consumption of on-train equipment, are looking to be expensive ongoing liabilities.

A key test for technology will be whether it can achieve the same reductions in overall cost that previous signalling introductions such as RETB secured 20 years earlier.

Even the basics of erecting new signals seem to result in mammoth civil engineering structures – Network Rail uses the picture of a new signal gantry replacing a simple post as an illustration of what must not be allowed to keep happening.

‘More electrification’ is a frequent call, yet the costs for achieving it have soared. The average BR scheme cost around £430,000 per single track km (stk), with the best being achieved on Leeds North West at £281,000.

The forecasts for future schemes currently range from £600,000 to £996,000 per stk. The initial estimate for the Edinburgh – Glasgow electrification was > £1 million per stk!

Train braking

Train braking systems are another anomaly. As a former President of the IRSE once said “it’s brakes that stop trains, not signals”, yet the signalling system is SIL4 whereas a traditional friction brake is SIL0.

If the UK were to adopt magnetic track brakes for main line trains (they are mandatory in Germany above 140kph and are often used on metros and light rail in the UK) the ensuing confidence in a much improved braking system would result in capacity, journey time and performance advantages.

Had they been fitted to the trains involved in the Clapham and Southall accidents, analysis suggests that there would have been 60% less kinetic energy in the former and the latter would have been avoided completely.

Magnetic brakes are also beneficial in combating adhesion problems during the leaf fall season, as has been the experience of Tyne & Wear Metro stock when running on Network Rail track.

Some answers

Encouraging signs are emerging. In Scotland the new Class 380 trains with 23m carriages are, at 168 tons, lighter than the 179 tons of the earlier 20m Class 350. They also have better acceleration and lower station dwell times.

Also, the Airdrie-Bathgate line was let on a fixed price contract and was delivered on time and budget.

It took 6 years from inception to opening and many innovations were needed to keep the cost to the contractual limit as the project team recognised the criticality of the fixed price.

Maybe innovation is the key, although British spending on this is poor compared to countries such as Japan which spends twice what we do.

The new Stephenson Award for Practical Engineering Innovation is a welcome move but, to qualify for the award, any idea must have a net beneficial impact on rail cost and/or revenue.

As Bill Reeve said, “Standards have their place but they are for the guidance of the wise and the strict observance of fools! Above all, remember that good engineering can deliver competitive advantage.”

Double Innovation in Electrification

21st November 2011

On 22 October 2011 Balfour Beatty Rail, working alongside Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Traction Group, installed the Paisley Gilmour Street Track Side Cabin as part of the Paisley Corridor Improvement Project in Scotland.

To look at, this trackside cabin is no different from many others on the UK Rail infrastructure. However, inside it is a different story. Hidden within this unit is the state of the art Balfour Beatty Rail Tracfeed Air Insulated Switchgear (AIS) that is being trialled at this site.

The Tracfeed AIS has been designed specifically to meet the requirements of 25kV railway applications and is derived from conventional 3-phase switchgear. It is common for 25kV switchgear used for railway applications to be insulated with SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) gas and this equipment is known as Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS).

However, since the Kyoto Protocol came into force on 16 February 2005, industry across the European community and other industrialised countries has been committed to reducing the green house gas emissions that cause damage to the ozone.

SF6 is one of the six main gases identified in the protocol. Balfour Beatty Rail’s AIS therefore provides Network Rail, and the railway industry in general, with a valuable alternative means of achieving environmental and sustainability policy objectives.

Air insulated busbar chamber

Additional benefits of the Balfour Beatty Tracfeed switchgear, when compared to its gas insulated switchgear equivalents, is that the busbar chamber is also air insulated thus eliminating the need for 24 /7 monitoring of the insulating gas pressure. Particularly in the winter months, a drop in temperature can cause low-gas-pressure alarms to be activated. These are always a cause for concern as, if the gas leaks out of gas insulated switchgear, the bus bars will fail as the insulation is lost. Of course the leaking gas will also cause an environmental incident.

Air insulated switchgear is also generally easier to extend for future capacity increases when compared with gas insulated equivalents. There is no need to de-gas and then re-seal and re-pressurise the bus bar chamber if extending the system. The new Balfour Beatty Rail air insulated system is modular, metal clad and extendable. Each switchgear panel consists of a bus bar compartment, a combined cable connecting and circuit breaker high voltage compartment, a circuit breaker truck, an integrated pressure relief channel and a low voltage compartment. The low voltage compartment is located at the top of the operating side of the panel and houses the protection relays and control equipment.

The vacuum interrupter is mounted on a retractable circuit breaker truck which is located inside the high voltage compartment. By rolling the circuit breaker truck in or out, a gap in the main current path is created or closed, thereby performing the function of a disconnector switch. Rails located in the panel guide the truck when it is moved between the disconnected or operating positions. The fixed contact system to the bus bar is protected against direct shorts whilst in the retracted position by an automatically operated shutter system.

Internal faults involve arcs and would lead to a pressure increase in the affected panel. To prevent this, an integrated pressure relief channel runs along the top of all of the panels to vent any excess pressure and protect against the mechanical or thermal effects of such arcs.

Easy maintenance

An important feature of the Balfour Beatty TracFeed TAC switchgear is that all equipment can be accessed from the front and the circuit breaker truck can also be withdrawn from the panel completely for maintenance.

Outgoing circuits are directly earthed by earthing switches mounted on the cubicle’s steel structure by means of insulators. These switches are motor operated by a spring drive with the capability of emergency hand operation and are interlocked with the corresponding disconnectors. A separate, fully rated electrical earth connection is provided directly to the structure.

Importantly the new switchgear is fully compatible with most protection devices and SCADA systems.

The complete trackside cabin was assembled in Scotland at Balfour Beatty Rail Engineering Services’ factory at Huntly Road, Glasgow. Situated close to the project, this provided an excellent environment for the Network Rail and Balfour Beatty engineering teams to develop and deliver this innovative new design which is a first in the UK. Balfour Beatty provided a “one stop shop” to Network Rail for the design, manufacture, integration, installation and testing of the equipment as part of the overall Paisley Corridor Improvement project.

Tunnels too

The fitting of electrification equipment within the spatial constraints of the UK rails civil infrastructure, some of which originates from Victorian times, has been a perennial problem for electrification engineers. Balfour Beatty Rail has, over a number of years, developed special techniques, expertise and products that allow the most complex tunnel electrification projects to be successfully completed.

The introduction of a new scissor crossover into the Midland City Line at Midland Road situated under the heart of the City of London within the Kings Cross North Tunnel, is a case in point. A special wiring configuration had to be developed to allow the crossover to be integrated into the existing 25kV electrification equipment in the tunnel. The new crossover allows trains using the St Pancras sub surface station to be turned around when an overhead line isolation is in place at the southern end. This project was undertaken as part of an operational upgrade associated with the Thameslink Improvement Programme.

Design evaluation

During the design phase of the project a number of possible options for electrifying this new piece of infrastructure were evaluated against operational performance, constructability and whole life costs. The analysis established that, for this particular project, a reduced-height semi-flexible conductor-based wiring system demonstrated the greatest cost efficiency for delivery while meeting the performance specification and construction programme requirements.

Physically fitting the electrification equipment into the confined tunnel profile, while ensuring conformance to mechanical and electrical clearance standards, was the predominant challenge of this project whilst at the same time ensuring electrical independence of the main through roads.

A clearance study, using various CAD design tools and numerical analysis was undertaken to assess the chosen OLE support configuration and ensure that the necessary electrical and mechanical clearances were maintained. This exercise considered the positioning of supporting equipment in conjunction with the vehicle and pantograph gauges that operate on this route. It involved 3D modelling of the wiring configuration and additionally, following numerical analysis, a number of 2D cross section slices were developed through the area of the crossover depicting the wires and pantographs in their relative operational positions.

Electrical sectioning was achieved by employing two 25 kV Section Insulators on the crossover wires. A special arrangement was chosen for this application to improve the along-track positioning of the equipment while ensuring that electrical clearances to the pantographs passing on the through lines were maintained.

The crossover wires for the scissors are auto-tensioned using spring tensioning devices which comply with the spatial envelope available and were easily mounted to the tunnel soffit.

Dynamic stability

To provide dynamic stability, the overhead line equipment arrangement directly above the crossover was supported vertically at the high load points of the section insulator. In addition, supports were added to the opposing side of the crossover to counteract any imbalance. This support configuration allowed the system to be adjusted on site to achieve equilibrium and a level contact wire profile which provides efficient current collection at the contact wire pantograph interface.

The structural integrity of the tunnel surface was tested at pre-construction phase to verify that the new electrification equipment could be introduced onto the existing civil infrastructure.

Construction commenced in June 2011. The Balfour Beatty Rail construction team used two 24 hour weekend track possessions for the installation of the support equipment, tensioning devices and bonding of the new equipment. A third 58 hour weekend possession was used to run the new contact and catenary wires for the crossover and the installation of the two new section insulators. Verification of the installation prior to section proving was achieved by manufacturing a track-mounted crucifix gauge that had been uniquely modified to incorporate the electrical clearance and kinetic vehicle tolerances.

The key to the success of this technically complex and challenging project was the depth of experience within the Balfour Beatty Rail engineering and construction teams that worked closely and in harmony with Network Rail’s Thameslink project team. The result was a successful project, delivered on time and to budget.

Doug Lee, Balfour Beatty Rail Programme Director, National Electrification, stated that, ‘We are committed to innovation and technical development to ensure that Network Rail’s objectives for the future electrification of the UK rail network are fully achieved in a cost effective manner.’

Written by Steve Cox and Barry Calder for the rail engineer

QTS – Value Engineering

15th November 2011

QTS have had an extremely successful year operating both as a sub-contractor on many large rail projects and increasingly as a Network Rail Principal Contractor.

This success is demonstrated by the award of the Network Rail BCDP (Building and Civil Delivery Partnership) for the Northern region and this week also being successful in securing the Network Rail Out of Use Assets Framework.

However, well known throughout the rail industry for their investment and innovation in rail plant and equipment, QTS continue to lead the way with some exciting new developments…

Station Innovations: QTS/Austact Tactile Indicators

Working in partnership with the Australian company Austact, QTS has been developing the use of individual tactile indicators – the raised dots on platform edges and at the top and bottom of stairs convey important information to visually impaired pedestrians about their environment, for example, hazard warning and directional guidance, that help to prevent the visually impaired from putting themselves in danger.

Traditionally, platform-edge tactile indicators come in the form of 400mm by 400mm slabs which are laid between the coping stone and platform surfacing.

This approach to platform construction is labour intensive as it requires three separate build stages, each individual stage requiring completion prior to the next commencing.

The QTS/Austact system is fitted once the surfacing is complete. Individual studs are set into holes drilled directly into the platform surface so they have operational advantages as well as being simple to install.

The studs are manufactured from a cross-linked, co-polymer material that can be produced in any colour, including fluorescent types for underground use.

A carborundum insert on the top of each stud increases slip resistance and reduces wear and the patented “tooth” form on the shaft prevents pull-out, even in asphalt.

One of the attractions of the studs to Network Rail is that they are not affected by frost heave and with Network Rail incurring significant costs every year repairing and maintaining station platforms this is a significant benefit.

The first pilot installation at Perth Station has been successfully completed as part of a major repairs project. Around 1400 metres of tactile indicators were installed, producing substantial cost and time savings.

Following the success of the Perth Station project, QTS has installed tactile indicators at Fauldhouse Station where they are the main contractor for the design and build of the new footbridge.

The tactile indicators were fitted at the bottom of both sets of stairs in place of traditional slabs.

Station Innovations: QTS Lightweight Platform Extensions

QTS are currently developing a Lightweight Platform System. With a combination of value engineering, existing methods and cutting edge innovation, QTS aim to maximise the efficiencies of the lightweight design philosophy and to provide Network Rail and industry partners with a full design and installation package.

The engineering philosophy behind the system is that the weight of the platform is equal or less than the excavated material removed, therefore no large foundations are required and by default the heavy plant element is removed.

The benefit of this is two-fold; it can be used on sites with settlement issues; time on site and foundation requirements are significantly reduced therefore saving time and cost.

As the system is weight-neutral there is no requirement for large complex foundation designs. The system reduces bearing pressures on the surface and can be used on embankments or on underbridges.

Minimal plant is required to install the system which offers significant cost and programme savings with the quick installation time and no requirement for wet trades.

Plant & Machinery Innovations: RRV High Speed Braking System

QTS have just received approval for the use of an industry first high speed braking system for high ride RRVs. TFI were sponsored to undertake the design and build of a rail wheel tread braking system to a Gallmac access platform, which is currently on permanent hire with Network Rail OHLE.

The system incorporates four brake assemblies which are bolted to an axle frame and operate on each rail wheel.

Each brake assembly has a combined spring-applied, air-release, parking and air service braking canister.

The brake application is applied to a tread brake shoe onto the rail wheel running surface. Vehicle parking and rail-wheel parking brakes are combined to operate through the same cab control switch.

Service braking is progressive. Vehicle service hydraulic braking and rail wheel, air service braking are linked to operate from the same vehicle brake pedal.

This is achieved by a hydraulic-to-air proportional control valve operating from the vehicle hydraulic brake signal.

The system is designed so that, during the initial brake pedal travel, the rail wheel brakes apply before the road wheels. The brake application ratio of rail wheel to vehicle braking is set from vehicle type brake trials.

Braking effect is relayed via a gauge to the cab. The gauge range is colour coded green and red with red indicating over-braking to show the operator he is going into a possible wheel-lock condition.

The new braking system has been applied to the Gallmac WMW115 and as a result of this it is now suitable for use on gradients greater than 1 in 75.

It is the first successful system that has been certified by the Vehicle Acceptance Body (VAB) and Network Rail to both the RIS 1530 PLT Issue 2 and the Network Rail Remit for Rail Wheel Braking.

It has been operating virtually continuously for the last three months without any issues and is currently the subject of patent applications.

Plant & Machinery Innovations: QTS/Casegrande Euro-Drill Rig

The most recent addition to the QTS plant fleet is the Euro-drill Rig supplied by Casagrande UK, well known for their first class drilling and mini piling fleet.

The unit is lighter than much of the competition and provides significant power/torque advantages – thus improving drilling time.

The unit was supplied with 2 different mast sizes, which means that for restricted sites such as tunnels/cuttings a shorter stroke can be used and on open ground the larger mast can be applied to achieve higher output.

Either way, the unit is compact and manoeuvrable, allowing works to be carried out easily in the usual ‘tricky’ railway scenario.

The unit is primarily used for the installation of soil nails on our earthworks sites, but can also drill rock anchors, mini-piles and wells if required.

The rig has successfully completed its first soil nailing project at Ellestree for BAM Nuttall, installing soil nails, and will move on to complete projects at Arkleston (Balfour Beatty) then Lochawe (Network Rail).

QTS are leading the way in providing unique and innovative cost-effective solutions to the Rail industry.