Home Blog Page 7

New Trains on the Docklands Light Railway

The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) has vastly increased in size since the original £77 million line opened in 1987 with 11, 28-metre-long trains. With extensions to Bank, Lewisham, Beckton, Woolwich, and Stratford International, and trains now three times as long, it is sometimes hard to understand why it is still called a light railway. But with the delivery of the first of the latest batch of trains from CAF, designated B23, the distinction between light rail and metro has become even less clear.

First, some terminology. Currently, a DLR ‘car’ is a two-body, three-bogie, articulated set approximately 28-metres-long. Today, trains rarely run as single cars; two-car and three-car trains are the norm. This terminology is having to be revised as the fixed formation B23 trains comprise five, two-bogie cars in a fixed formation that is 86.7 metres long, 2.65 metres wide, and has open gangways between cars. Each car is slightly longer than a London Underground S stock but noticeably narrower. This configuration provides some challenges, described later.

In 2019, TfL placed a contract with CAF for the supply of 43, five-car trains. Thirty-three are intended to replace all the life expired B90/B92/B2k (hereinafter B92) fleet with the additional 10 trains being used to support the projected passenger growth across the DLR network. In June 2023, TfL called off another 11 trains to further respond to growth in East London.

B07 car to be retained – foreground, B92 cars to be scrapped – background.

TfL is expanding Beckton depot to accommodate all 54 B23 trains, a net increase of 23 trains over current capacity. Moreover, maintaining an 86.7-metre train needs different facilities from those set up for 28-metre cars and visitors to the depot, who’ve arrived at from Gallions Reach station, walk past a significant building site where additional sidings are being built. There will also be an additional maintenance shed. But this article focuses on the layout and technology of the new trains based on a visit by Rail Engineer in September 2023.

Relationships

Project engineer Phil Shrapnell from TfL, together with Dave Collins and Andy Slade from Keolis Amey Docklands (KAD), hosted the visit and it was immediately obvious that they are an effective team.

Moreover, they paid tribute to the excellent working relationship with the CAF engineering team. Phil said that following contract placement there was a great deal of team building and co-operative liaison with CAF in Besain, Northern Spain, before Covid caused everyone to work remotely. The relationships built before lockdown helped effective remote working. Representatives of KAD’s Passenger Services Agents (PSA) also had input, in Spain, to the layout of operator touch points. But this cooperation went further. Phil explained that the specification was treated as a live document, with collaborative discussions between the London and Spanish teams to understand the real intent behind the requirements, allowing the evolution of the design to best meet the needs of the DLR.

Technology

Modern trains are complicated. Most of their systems are linked together by a computerised network, generally known as Train Control and Monitoring System (TCMS). On B23 it is linked to a shore system, a CAF system called LeadMind, which collects data for remote condition monitoring and can control some aspects of the train, an example being the bogie-mounted wheel flange lubricators. While all the trains have wheel flange lubricators, no one yet knows how much lubrication will be needed until all the trains are in service. But not to worry, Rail Engineer was told, the lubricators will be remote controlled from the control room.

Another new technology feature is a WiFi antenna in each car. This is for direct connection to a ‘phablet’ device using the Android operating system. These devices will be provided to PSAs who will be able to deal with passenger incidents and talk to passengers from the phablet if, for example, crowding makes it difficult for the PSA to move through the train to the location of the alarm.

Table 1

The train

The disposition of key equipment is shown in Table 1. In practice cars D and E are mirror images of cars one and two. Table 2 shows the manufacturers of key equipment and Table 3 compares weight and capacity of the B23 trains with a three-car B07 train.

Achieving weight targets was very important as there were strict limits on some of the structures from the original ‘light railway’. Although a great deal more equipment is fitted, particularly air conditioning, and passenger capacity is higher, weight has been held in check by the switch to aluminium car bodies instead of steel used on earlier trains.

Equipment

But onto other more routine technical features. Phil emphasised the importance of redundancy and graceful failure to avoid service disruption. A stranded train that needs recovery causes much more disruption compared with one that can limp home to depot. As an example, although there are three motor cars, just one of them has enough tractive effort to propel the train up the steep gradient between Bank and Shadwell. And each motor car’s traction package has two inverters, one for the two motors in each bogie. All three motor cars have their own power collector shoes which are an improved version of the Brecknell Willis design used since DLR started. There is no power bus line. Cars B and D are each fitted with an auxiliary power converter providing three phase AC power and 110V DC for battery charging, powered from Cars A and E respectively.

Regenerative braking will be the norm but there is a naturally cooled rheostatic resistor on each motor car for conductor rail gaps and any part of the line that are not receptive for regenerated energy.

Each axle has a single brake disc controlled by Knorr Bremse’s EP2002 system. Wheelslide protection is fitted which Phil expects to be evaluated on the WSPER rig (Issue 176, July 2019) prior to service.

Table 2

CBTC equipment is fitted to the trailer cars. It is the latest Thales ‘SelTrac TOP’ VOBC (Vehicle On-Board Computer). The tachometers feeding the VOBC are fitted to the eighth and thirteenth trailer axles and the antenna for transmitting/receiving data to/from track loops is adjacent. Either VOBC can drive the train and the system can switch between them seamlessly.

Unusually the tachometer axles are only braked if an emergency brake is demanded. SelTrac systems can be prone to losing position if slip/slide is detected on the tachometer fitted axle in low adhesion conditions, leading to an emergency brake application and the VOBC reporting that it is ‘lost’. When this happens, the PSA has to drive the train manually at slow speed over two loop crossovers to re-establish location, causing delay. The unbraked axles are expected to significantly reduce this issue. The guaranteed emergency brake rate is 1.26m/s2. This is the value that the ATP assumes when determining how far a train may move towards another train or obstruction.

Train control

As mentioned, the TCMS is responsible for most non-vital train control functions with hard wire control of vital functions. DLR decided that there would be two networks, one for train control functions, and a second that deals with passenger facing systems. DLR specified that the control room would have access to the on-train CCTV and was concerned that the bandwidth required for video signals could harm the response of train control commands – hence the second network.

Passenger, interior and PSA features

A big improvement for DLR passengers is air conditioning. Each car has a roof mounted air conditioner pack, and, for redundancy, given there are no openable windows, each pack has two chillers fitted. Lighting is by LEDs and each car has its own controller which can adjust the lighting level depending on the amount of ambient light and can change the colour temperature of the light depending on time of day. Each car has its own battery for emergency lighting built into the controller.

In the interests of maximising capacity, all but eight seats on the train are longitudinal, but eight transverse seats were retained, four at each end, partly to provide a semi-enclosed space for the PSA when driving manually (although they drive standing up at their request), and partly for people who like to imagine they’re driving!

There are 12 sets of passenger doors per side, two per side on Cars A, C, and E, and three per side on Cars B and D. Phil described them as low-profile plug doors which incorporate sensitive edges and anti-drag systems. They don’t close completely flush with the bodyside and, when open, project very little. When the doors are released, lights over the doors glow green and they flash red when the door close command is sent.

Table 3

There is a PSA door control at every doorway, and, following human factors review, they are located at a lower level than on the older trains with half on the left and half on the right. At stations, doors are released automatically by the CBTC. The controls are the same as the older trains: close all doors except the PSA’s, reopen doors, close PSA’s door, and public address. A key-operated switch and a microphone complete the controls.

As well as a light provided on the older trains indicating that the train has movement authority (CBTC speak for a green signal!) the B23 has a countdown indicator allowing the PSA to initiate the door close sequence a little earlier. Once all the doors are proved closed and the VOBC has movement authority, the train starts automatically. Currently, the system is set up so that the doors only close after a three-second alert has elapsed. This is compliant with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR). But it is a much longer delay than is used currently on DLR and on most of the Underground. As the shorter delay has been used successfully on DLR for over 30 years, a proposal has been made to DfT for a derogation from RVAR, like those previously granted for some of the Underground’s new trains.

Gangways

DLR has 40-metre radius plain curves, 40-metre radius back-to-back reverse curves on the service lines, and 38-metre radius curves in the depot. Providing a gangway on 17-metre-long, two-bogie vehicles, that must negotiate such small radius curves/reverse curves is a challenging requirement and, as a result, it is much longer than is usual. It was made by gangway specialists Hubner, based on a design previously used in Frankfurt, and the project team reported that it is performing well during network testing.

Completed B23 train in CAF’s Besain factory. Key items labelled.

Passenger alarm, CCTV, passenger information

Passenger alarms are fitted in each doorway and alongside each wheelchair bay. As is usual, the passenger alarm only stops the train immediately if it is at or departing from a station. Operation of the passenger alarm alerts the PSA and the PSA can respond using the phablet or control point handset if the PSA is unable to move down the train to the customer. Passenger information includes the usual voice and visual displays. The visual displays are LCD type for the interior and LED dot matrix for the exterior and the whole system is pre-programmed with the usual messages (e.g., next station and destination) which can be varied from the control room via the 4/5G/wifi comms link. This includes the ability to display the standard TfL ‘rainbow’ board highlighting any delays on other rail lines. Additional displays are provided for advertising.

Saloon CCTV is fitted as well as cameras providing views from the front and rear of the train. The saloon CCTV cameras give views of the entire train and particularly of people using the passenger alarms. A nice feature of the forward/rear cameras is a rearwards view is displayed on the PSA’s control desk if reverse movement is selected (accompanied by external reversing beeps). 

Safety features – fire

The engineering process is aimed at delivering a train that is safe by design and the sub-systems described above all include safety features, but there are inevitably some risks that need specific controls. A key requirement is fire safety, especially on a train with open wide gangways. This applies to everything on the train with the objective of minimising sources of ignition and using materials that are hard to ignite, tend to self-extinguish, resist flame spread, and produce little smoke.

The train has been designed to BSEN 45545 Operation Category 4, Design category A. Operation Category 4 refers to vehicles for operation on underground sections, tunnels, and/or elevated structures, without side evacuation available, and where there are stations or rescue stations that offer a place of safety to passengers, reachable within a short running time. Design category A is for vehicles forming part of an automatic train having no emergency trained staff on board. The combination results in the toughest requirements for fireworthiness of all materials used in the train’s construction. In addition to careful selection of materials, a smoke and heat detection system is provided, linked to the PSA and the control room, and there are three fire extinguishers on each train.

Inter car gangway whilst negotiating depot curves.

Safety features – obstacles and derailment

The combination of good bogie design, well maintained track and ATP means that derailment risk is extremely low, but not negligible. Two systems are provided to help control the risk and consequences of a derailment. DLR had specified an obstacle detection system that would ensure a train would stop short of an obstruction (similar to modern automobiles’ emergency braking feature) but it soon became clear that comparatively longer braking distances for trains and DLR’s sharp curves made such a feature impractical. Instead, there is a bar fitted in front of the leading axle that, if it strikes an object that could derail the train, it will apply the emergency brakes. While this does not prevent a collision with an obstruction leading possibly to a derailment, by applying the emergency brake the consequences will be minimised. As another precaution, an underframe mounted accelerometer is provided on both ends of all cars. This will apply the emergency brake if it detects acceleration pattern that would be seen if a wheelset has derailed.

Safety features, emergency detrainment

There is a door at the end of each end car to which a folding stair can be fitted, in case evacuation away from a station is required. Rail Engineer was told that the current record for extracting the stair and fitting it to the front of the train is just under 80 seconds.

Infrastructure monitoring

Two trains are being fitted with Omnicom Balfour Beatty infrastructure monitoring systems that will provide an important subset of routine track condition information on a much more frequent basis than is currently possible with KAD’s existing monitoring equipment. The trains will be programmed onto each route as required.

Power supply

With 20-plus extra trains, DLR is planning an upgrade to the power supply. This will also support the higher acceleration rate of the new trains compared with the old ones. While the timetable will be organised around the capability of the B2007 trains, the VOBC will be able to take advantage of the B23’s higher acceleration rate to recover the timetable if there are delays. Another power issue is the proximity of live collector shoes to the platforms. Since DLR opened, covers mounted on the platform wall have shrouded collector shoes when trains are stopped in stations. The new trains’ shoes are in different positions, so DLR has provided continuous covers at all platforms.

Derailment detector.
Obstacle detector bar.

PSA clear view of platforms

Another external interface is cameras/CCTV monitors and/or mirrors provided to give the PSA a clear view of the platforms when driving from the front of the train. As the front end design is different, the PSA will be standing up to drive (a PSA preference), although they can be seated if monitoring ATO and controlling the doors. Mirrors and/or monitors are being provided/relocated at platform ends to give the seated or standing PSA a clear view of the PTI for both new and older trains.

Operational acceptance and training

Currently there are two trains in London, being used for testing, integration, and reliability proving. The trains have to be tested throughout DLR, and the SelTrac CBTC has to be tuned to the train as its acceleration and braking characteristics will inevitably be different from the existing trains. Reliability must be demonstrated before being accepted and a 20,000km mean distance between service affecting failures is the requirement. Of course, KAD staff – PSAs, maintainers, etc. – also need to be trained. A train simulator has been provided and there will be a test rig for the new VOBCs. DLR has placed a long-term support contract with CAF, something that will support KAD with maintenance, spares and technical support.

To conclude, the October TfL Commissioner’s report to the TfL Board says that TfL is preparing for the launch of the new trains, and continues with depot enabling works, new train testing at times of closure, and preparation for testing in between passenger trains. Entry into service is forecast for March 2024. At the time of writing, the 25th train was nearing completion.

Photos courtesy of TfL unless credited otherwise.

DLR/KeolisAmey Docklands

DLR/KeolisAmey Docklands DLR is operated on a concession model. TfL/DLR owns the infrastructure and rolling stock, but it lets a contract for the maintenance and operation of the railway. The current concessionaire is KAD which has held the contract since 2014. In legal terms, KAD is the Train Operator and Infrastructure Manager for the stations, with TfL as Duty Holder for all the other infrastructure. The contract is due to end in 2025 and TfL has recently commenced the procurement process for the next concession. The changeover date is in April 2025, before all the new trains will be in service, so the handover process will have to take this into account.

Delivering Docklands Light Railway

Our companion article in this issue about the new Docklands Light Railway trains acknowledges the significant role of KeolisAmey Docklands (KAD) on the project and in delivering the DLR’s day-to-day service as Transport for London’s (TfL) Operations and Maintenance partner for Docklands Light Railway Limited (DLR), part of TfL.

TfL / DLR owns the assets and, in safety certificate terms, is the infrastructure manager for the guideway infrastructure, whereas KAD maintains the trains and infrastructure and is the train and station operator and infrastructure manager for all stations. This article discusses how KAD works collaboratively with DLR to improve the performance of the existing trains, whilst ensuring safety and maximising efficiencies on the trains that are soon to be scrapped (B90/B92/B2K – hereafter B92) and also preparing for the new trains. All this was discussed with Tony Kempster, KAD’s rolling stock head of technical services in early October 2023.

Avoiding expensive interventions

From experience, new trains rarely arrive at a convenient time to dovetail with an existing fleet’s orderly maintenance plan. Plans have to be adapted with the aim that old trains are withdrawn just before the wheels are worn down to the scrapping limits and/or just before an overhaul is due.

KAD has developed a mileage control database system to help it manage all this. In brief, the trains report their station stops via the SelTrac CBTC system. As the distance between two stations never varies, this is converted into mileage. This new process was developed to enable more accurate measurements, reduce the requirement to physically access the vehicles, mitigate any inaccuracies and enable prediction of all the vehicle mileages for their remaining life.

KAD also knows the trains that are running with wheel tyres which need to be scrapped when worn beyond limits, at what mileage that is likely to occur, and when the next heavy maintenance is due. This information is linked to the mileage control database. Depot planners know the mileage of each train duty which allows planners to organise formations (two or three cars – a car is an articulated unit with two bodies and three bogies) and duties to give prominence to trains/formations that have plenty of ‘mileage life’ left before needing expensive intervention.

“This requires careful planning using the mileage control database,” Tony reported, “and sometimes, stopping vehicles for a while, although this does put extra strain on availability.” He added that most Maintenance Tasks are now carried out on a condition-based regime.

Implementing condition-based maintenance was a significant change which included assessing the assets’ baseline condition, changing all maintenance task instructions (to include pass/fail criteria), transition exams, and, of course, safety assurance.

B92 type motor bogie, not longitudinal motor driving both axles.

But there is still a complex scrapping plan which, as well as taking account of the heavy maintenance needs, includes managing small wheels, bogie frame cracks (see Case Study Bogie Frames), auto coupler reliability restrictions, and some units with general reliability issues which Tony described as lemons.

An example of a condition-based maintenance activity introduced recently is extending the overhaul life of B92 traction motors; DC motors mounted longitudinally in motor bogies driving both axles. To justify postponing motor overhaul on trains soon to be scrapped, Tony identified that the biggest risk is failure of motor bearing. These carry the load of a heavy armature as the only suspension the motor sees is its resilient mounts on the bogies and the resilient wheels.

To manage this risk, KAD has adopted vibration monitoring of the bearings using the novel approach of rotating the wheels on the underfloor wheel lathe and measuring acoustic vibration in the bearings. For these cars, with just two traction motors/motor bogies, this is a fairly straightforward process.

Tony expanded on general reliability issues. B92 trains are between 23 and 33 years old. They use DC chopper control and other electronics which are life expired or obsolete. The electronic modules are connected to the train wiring with connectors that have suffered general wear and tear. This means that maintainers are often faced with difficult failures that could be a defect with an electronic module, a connector, or with the wiring. Given the life of asset, some of these problems are intermittent and can sometimes lead to challenging repairs or repeat defects with the train failing again. 

B2007 trains

As the B2007 trains will remain in service for some time – they are about 15 years old – Tony reported that a lot of new, exciting projects are coming up mainly focused on maintaining and improving the fleet’s performance.  These include replacement of obsolete systems, software updates, and installation of new systems. Tony illustrated one example – the Smart Oil Plug®. Unlike B92, B2007 cars have two motors per bogie (four per car) mounted parallel to the axles and driving the wheels through double reduction gearboxes. The Smart Oil Plug, powered by Transmission Dynamics, replaces the conventional oil filler, or drain plugs, designed and certified for axle-mounted operation to monitor temperature, vibration, and ferromagnetic oil debris – an indication of gear or bearing damage.

This wireless, sensor-based solution, developed by industrial data experts Transmission Dynamics and brought to the market by distribution partner ZF Aftermarket, enables real-time monitoring and analysis of gearbox health and behaviour in railway vehicles. The sensor can detect gearbox vibrations, providing insights into gearbox quality, wheel slide, track quality, impending bearing failure, and suspension defects. The plug, equipped with an onboard battery, transmits data to the control unit via Bluetooth and has a three-year battery life.

The control unit sends live data to a web portal through GSM, allowing ZF Aftermarket to provide KAD with real-time access to all data and alerts regarding adverse conditions. Additionally, the system offers longer-term condition monitoring recommendations to assist in maintenance planning.Currently, said Tony, the system is being evaluated to build up a picture of what the system is reporting and the results/alerts are being calibrated/correlated. ZF Aftermarket and Transmission Dynamics will be working with KAD to develop artificial intelligence to filter data and identify negative trends.

Integrating the new trains: Tony returned to the subject of new trains. He praised the team effort involving KAD Stores, Production, and Engineering Teams working well with the DLR Rolling Stock Replacement Project (RSRP) team.

Materials

It’s not just the new trains that will squeeze available space until the old ones are scrapped. The same is true of the stores. Additional storage is being created both off-site and on by obtaining 16 shipping containers. Tony added that slow moving B92 stock has already been moved into four containers which have been relocated to the new build area, freeing up depot space for building works/expansion. KAD is also in the process of clearing the materials located in the wheel lathe to allow work to begin expanding this location.

KAD is working with RSRP to develop and integrate new agreed processes to manage and, where necessary, segregate maintenance spares (exam kits), from warranty spares (owned by the supplier), customer owned materials (spares held in reserve but only obtainable with the main build), and new special tooling.

KAD has identified what parts can be salvaged from early scrapped B92s for possible use on trains to be scrapped later, i.e., items where the float is low or where they may avoid re-ordering. It has also identified 31 parts in common with B2007 parts (but inevitably not the same part number) and is working with London Underground to see if any components could be used across the tube fleet. The stores team is continually reviewing and monitoring stock levels to realise any efficiencies.

Google Earth view of Beckton depot showing expansion areas.

Staff

A number of new positions have been created to support RSRP such as project managers, commissioning technicians, material controllers, engineers, technical authors, and planners.

Tony talked about the importance of integrating the depot works with the introduction programme. The creation of more sidings on the north and south sides of the Beckton site gives a false sense of security as the construction sites are currently entirely separate from the depot. But when they start work on the maintenance shed, which will be in the middle of the depot, KAD Management will have to ensure everyone’s safety (KAD, TfL, DLR, CAF and various construction contractors and sub-contractors), whilst co-ordinating activities so that maintenance can continue to be carried out and a full service provided.

Tony illustrated this with preparations for wheel lathe works. Currently, around 28 metres is required either side of the wheel lathe to accommodate a car. But the new trains will need three times the amount of space each side and, Tony said, they are working with DLR to acquire a double headed wheel lathe to speed up reprofiling on a five-vehicle unit. Tony reported that a series of three-week part shutdowns is planned but this will need careful management as the wheel lathe road is not just used for tyre turning, but also for vibration analysis and graffiti removal.

New concession

The final part of the jigsaw is the retendering by TfL of the concession. The planned date for the new concession to start is in April 2025, before the depot upgrade, introduction of new trains, and scrappage of old trains has been completed – not the steady state usually sought for such changes. Tony stated that it’s a very exciting project at KAD, with the B92 cascade, B2007 reliability projects, new fleet introduction, and re-franchise. He reported that KAD is working closely and collaboratively with DLR to ensure that KAD’s work packages are delivered in the appropriate time.

It was good to see KAD’s plan for managing the introduction of the new trains while keeping the existing fleet running. No doubt there will bumps in the road during this process and Rail Engineer wishes success to everyone involved.

Case study: Bogie frames

In 2014, what proved to be fatigue cracking was observed in the B92 bogie frames. This led to a programme of NDT and repair which is still in place today. The root cause of the cracks was fatigue in both the parent metal and welds in high stress areas. The initial repair was by welding. However well they’re carried out, welded cracks in high stress areas are likely to fail again, but they buy time. By 2018, KAD was struggling with both vehicle availability, spiralling costs, and extended and forced delays to the bogie overhaul due to these cracks. More intrusive weld repairs followed but further cracks were found.

Something had to be done and DLR / KAD engineers started work to ‘reverse engineer’ brand new bogie frames with an independent subject matter expert to provide options for an internal strategy paper and a technical specification for the project.

The original design, detailed on a suite of drawings provided by OEM BN Bruges (part of Bombardier) was converted into a 3D model from which 2D drawings were produced. The specification proposed the following changes aimed at improving frame design and manufactured quality:

  • Pre-production frames would be built and the experience would be used to simplify manufacture and allow the supplier to use current best practice.
  • The supplier would propose improved weld details at the transom to side frame joint, which was the site of the most serious cracks, and that several unnecessary pipe clips would be omitted.
  • The supplier would be invited to propose any other detail improvements that it would like to implement, provided that a justification can be offered for each one.
  • The bogie frames would be fabricated in accordance with the requirements of the railway vehicle welding standard BS EN ISO 15085, instead of standards applicable to general fabrication welding used previously. Railway vehicle welding standards were developed in the period 2005 to 2007 to improve the quality and consistency of safety critical components such as bogie frames.
Bogie sideframe.
Bogie frame machining operations.
Completed bogie frame.

As owners of the vehicles, DLR initiated this work as a project at the end of 2018 and it was agreed that it would be managed by KAD. Several companies experienced in making bogie frames were interested but, after a procurement process involving rigorous technical evaluation, Hutchinson Engineering Ltd from Widnes was the preferred supplier. Hutchinson specialises in telecoms (antenna towers), renewable energy (wind turbine towers), and other major steelwork projects and was able to demonstrate state of the art machinery, technology and quality in design, fabrication, welding, and inspection. As Hutchinson was inexperienced with railway safety assurance, SNC-Lavalin (now AtkinsRéalis) was appointed to carry out independent assurance checks and surveillance visits when production started January 2020. The first batch of new frames (10 of 40) was delivered in March 2020 and the first nine frames (3 x vehicles) were subject to additional assurance measures/in service checks in place. A total of 130 frames has been ordered, 124 delivered, and, of these, 118 have been fitted. Just under 30% of the old frames remain crack free, and about 28% of the old frames have cracks being managed through the NDT programme.

Image credit: Malcolm Dobell / Tony Kempster

The new train on the Piccadilly line will arrive in 2025

Rail Engineer described the outline design of London Underground’s forthcoming new Piccadilly line trains (2024 tube stock) in issue 190 (June/July 2021). Since then, Siemens or TfL have occasionally issued press releases showing progress with first bodyshells or mock-ups.

On 1 August 2023, Siemens announced that the first complete train had arrived at its 44-hectare Test and Validation Centre in Wegberg-Wildenrath from its Vienna factory, ready to start type testing. In November, Rail Engineer visited Wildenrath to try out the new train. It had been positioned on the inner test circuit, a dual gauge (standard/metre) oval 2.45km long, equipped with overhead line, underneath contact third rail, which had third and fourth current collection rails added for 2024 tube stock.

This article focusses on some of the train’s technical details, and the result of turning 3D renders or mock-ups into the real thing.

To recap, this is a nine-car train with bogies under five of the cars with the other four cars supported between them. The design allows all double doors, walk though gangways, and air conditioning: all passenger facing features that were the raison d’etre for this innovative design. Compared with a conventional seven-car train of the same length, it is lighter and, with just 10 instead of 14 bogies, there is more under-floor space which was vital to accommodate air conditioning equipment.

Collaboration

When Rail Engineer interviewed Dave Hooper, Siemens Mobility’s Director of Major Programmes, in 2021, he was full of praise for the way in which the Siemens and TfL teams worked together. Two years on, Dave, together with Sambit Banerjee, joint CEO Siemens Mobility UK, Stuart Harvey, chief capital officer TfL, and Steve Ristow, head of delivery, Fleet Introduction, paid tribute to the ongoing close collaboration and the objective of delivering a train that meets all of TfL’s aspirations on time and to budget.

This year, Rail Engineer has attended several events where collaboration was seen as the solution to problems or the way forward. Occasionally, as here, collaboration has been baked into the relationship from day one, with obvious benefits to the project.

TfL Chief Capital Officer Stuart Harvey and Siemens Mobility UK Joint CEO Sambit Banerjee. Image credit: Siemens Mobility UK

2024 tube stock progress

Approaching the train, two things were immediately obvious. First, it looked awfully small set against European gauge trains, especially double-deckers. Second, there were red light strips glowing above each closed door and a green strip above the open door. The red strips stayed lit when moving which, Rail Engineer understands, is not the final configuration. Stepping into the train led to more surprises. The lighting – all LED from Yorkshire-based LPA Lighting Systems – was bright, even in daylight. Very unusually for a tube train in the open on a cold November day, it was warm, and the designers have managed to provide more headroom, no mean feat within the tight gauge of the London small gauge lines.

Inside, it is clearly a tube train with traditional painted poles and rails and a new moquette design (named Holden, a tribute to the architect of many Piccadilly line stations). Details from the original Priestman Goode proposal from many years ago survive, including a metal TfL roundel on each seat riser. The small windows, provided to allow space for air conditioning ducts, echo the 1938 tube stock and there is a particularly neat looking circular LED lamp surrounding the grabpole in the centre of each doorway. The seats are all longitudinal with some tip up seats in every car. The seats have been designed to encourage people to sit upright, but it would be an exaggeration to say they are soft; they offer a similar level of comfort to most modern tube train seats.

Above the windows, where one would normally find cardboard adverts, there were LED screens which on this train were showing journey progress towards Heathrow Airport. External information displays are white LED strips.

The train had been rigged for dynamic testing to demonstrate acceleration and braking functionality along with noise and vibration trials. This meant that only the leading car was completely clear of test apparatus and wiring; the rest of the train was closed off by a mirrored door.

Another feature is wide doorways, although the individual door panels themselves are not as wide as on previous tube stock as the door operating mechanism is in the roof, not on the car side. These are equipped with sensitive edges, similar to the provision on the most recent TfL tube trains.

There is a small ramp down to the cab.  Piccadilly line drivers will find their ‘office’ more spacious than their current cabs. As the driver sits further back from the windscreen for both comfort and crashworthiness reasons, the field of view is a little more restrictive, so some alterations to signals will be necessary for this reason and also to accommodate the longer train (113m, compared with 1973 tube stock at 106m).

From the outside

Looking round the outside of the train, the prominent white marker strip light around the cab front is supplemented by two extremely small but very bright headlights. TfL has also departed from the traditional Wedgelock mechanical coupler in favour of a Dellner type for emergency and recovery use. There is not enough space above the coupler for the usual centre anti-climb buffer, and side anti-climbers are used instead. Safety arrangements at Wildenrath precluded a detailed look underneath the train, but the inside frame bogies were clearly visible showing Brecknell-Willis shoegear, Faiveley brake cylinders, solid stick wheel flange lubricators, and wheel/rail sanding applicators.

All the bogies carry shoegear except the motor bogies on car five in the centre of the train. It was also possible to see the large centre coupler that connects a bogie car to a bridge car. The couplers are designed to allow roll, pitch, and yaw movement. If roll was uncontrolled, the intermediate car would be unstable, so one end had a roof level lateral control rod connected to the adjacent motor car. The tray supporting the compressed air supply and the many electrical connections is supported by the coupler. As the couplings do not have to accommodate lateral or vertical relative movement between cars, gangways are relatively short. This configuration has led to some clever equipment layout solutions involving shoes on all but the centre motor car, whilst the inverters (one per motor) are on the intermediate (bogieless) cars as the diagram illustrates.

Siemens’ climate chamber has been used to assess the performance in extreme weather conditions. It delivers realistic and repeatable climate conditions with which to assess whether the air conditioners cool, heaters heat, and whether all the equipment continues to operate in hot, cold, dry, wet, and freezing conditions. Tests focused on the effects of extreme ambient temperatures from -15°C to 40°C, solar load of 600W/m2, ice, and high wind speeds of up to 100kmph, to check the train can still operate in extreme weather conditions. Monitors were used to understand what passengers would experience, measuring humidity and temperatures in the cars.

The ride around the inner circuit was smooth and quiet. Rail Engineer thought the train was riding on air suspension before remembering it uses rubber springs. Overall, it is a compliment to say that this first train is a faithful realisation of the design concepts, with an overall feel of solidity.

Image credit: Siemens Mobility UK

Programme

Sambit Banerjee and Stuart Harvey outlined the programme for the next few years. Following type testing at Wildenrath, the first train is expected to be delivered to London (through the Channel Tunnel) for infrastructure integration testing in summer 2024, with entry into service due in 2025. Stuart said he expected to be able to withdraw the last 1973 tube stock train in 2027, and the last new train might be delivered a few months later. Although the original contract provided for about half of the trains to be made at the new facility in Goole (issue 104, September/October 2023), Sambit indicated that a higher proportion might be made there depending on meeting delivery timescales for TfL.

The first carbodies are due in the UK in March 2024 when manufacturing will commence for the Piccadilly line trains at the Goole factory. For further support, work has just started on a new joint venture parts warehouse on an adjacent site.

What next?

Stuart Harvey explained that the Bakerloo line trains (1972 tube stock) are even older that the 1973 tube stock, and whilst safe, are increasingly suffering from poor condition and obsolescence. He said:

“The most important thing now is that we are making the case to Government for the vital long-term capital investment we need to continue with improvements like this, which support jobs and economic growth. We want to follow the introduction of these new trains on the Piccadilly line by doing the same on the Bakerloo line, replacing the 51-year-old trains that it currently operates, and by continuing to modernise our fleets and signalling to make sure they remain safe and reliable. Such vital improvements will not be possible without continued capital investment from the Government from April 2024.”

Sambit Banerjee added that that all future UK orders including the Bakerloo line trains would be built in Goole.

Even if ordered immediately, Rail Engineer understands that none would be in service before 2028, by which time the 1972 tube stock would approaching 56 years old, an unenviable record for trains in front line daily operation. This is about 20 years beyond their original design life for which there is no real precedent, making it hard for engineers to be confident that the trains can continue running.

If nothing is done, the Bakerloo service will gradually decline. Although TfL has identified an option to carry out a costly condition improvement programme, which would extend the life for another 10 years, the costs are uncertain and new trains would have to follow. It is an expensive option compared with new trains.

Stuart explained that the current contract has a costed option for new Bakerloo line trains which must be exercised by the end of 2026, adding that TfL is seeking £500 million from government to support its capital programme. Although 2026 is the latest date for ordering the trains, Stuart said that TfL needs the go-ahead as soon as possible as extensive infrastructure works are needed to accommodate the new trains.  These changes include:

  • Expansion of Stonebridge Park Depot to accommodate more trains and this train design where it is not easy to split the train into individual cars.
  • Station works to fit new CCTV cameras and transmission system to give a clear view of the platform train interface to a monitor in the driver’s cab.
  • Works to the power supply to accommodate higher peak demand and regenerative braking.
  • Changes to the signalling to accommodate different sight lines.
Image credit: Malcolm Dobell

Conclusion

Showing off the first train of a fleet is always a good way of gauging progress. TfL and Siemens are clearly confident in the new train and by having options in their contract for more are in a position, with what is effectively an ‘oven ready project’ (to coin a phrase used by a previous London Mayor), to press ahead rapidly if funding can be made available. This funding would demonstrate confidence in London and in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

With thanks to Siemens Mobility’s Katie Byrnes for her assistance with this article.

Bakerloo line fleet, a personal perspective

I was involved with commissioning the 1972 tube stock in around 1973, shortly after finishing my training with London Transport. Thirty trains (mark 1) had been bought to replace some of the 1938 stock on the Northern line which had been dubbed ‘the misery line’. Soon after Metro Cammell said that there would be a gap in production before the Piccadilly line 1973 stock was built, so the government agreed to the production of 33 trains (mark 2) for the recently authorised Fleet line (now Jubilee line). The trains were originally put to work on the Northern line allowing more old trains to be withdrawn.

Over their lives, this fleet of 63 trains worked on the Northern, Jubilee, and Bakerloo line. They were refurbished in the early 1990s which entailed being hauled across the Forth Bridge to the Royal Dockyard at Rosyth. Whilst most of the mark 1 trains were withdrawn in the late 1990s, a few were modified to work with the mark 2 trains and to replace accident-damaged cars.

The Bakerloo line contains a large number of small radius curves and constant operation over these gives the running gear, bogies, underframe, couplings, etc, a hard life. By the time they were about 40 years old, it was apparent that they might have to keep running until the 2020s and it was my team that proposed a series of repairs to keep them going.

Authority to carry out mechanical repairs to the body and underframe was granted, although the sum had to be increased as the vehicles were in a worse condition than had been found during the initial survey (issue 141, July 2016). Since then, further modifications have been carried out to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations and to refresh the interiors which were largely unchanged since the early 1990s refurbishment. The works covered in the 2016 article were intended to extend the life to circa 2026.

Even if new trains are ordered immediately, there is no prospect of them being in service until about 2028. Already the Bakerloo line service has been reduced slightly because of unavailability of trains. Replacement is urgent. Could there be further life extension? Probably, but it would involve spending a lot of money on worn out parts and engineering replacements for those that are obsolete. There would also need to be continuing risk assessment to ensure the safety of these trains and it is hard to be conclusive about risk or future life when there’s little or no prior experience of running such old trains in squadron service. The risk is that there might be a significant reduction in service, or, in a worst-case scenario, the Bakerloo line has to cease operation altogether.

The Railway and its supply chain

It was a pleasure to be invited to the Railway Industry Association (RIA) annual conference. This was a great opportunity to hear of emerging policies and thoughts of the customer base, government, regulator, Network Rail (NR), and the train companies.

An opening address by RIA Chief Executive Darren Caplan, spoke of many concerns. The scrapping of HS2 Phase 2 is a huge disappointment and questions are being asked about what could have been done to prevent this. Unsurprisingly, HS2 featured in other presentations which mentioned the constant specification changes with consequential rising costs. A strong plea was made not to sell off the acquired land as the project needed to be re-assessed.

Beyond that, 54% of suppliers think the industry will contract due to the uncertainty about future projects. With no new rolling stock orders for over 1,000 days train builders are seriously concerned for the future of their factories. Yet despite strikes and poor performance, passenger numbers are increasing with leisure travel on some routes exceeding pre-Covid levels.

Promoting rail is vital and everyone involved in the industry should be engaging in this. RIA will fight for a better rail hearing and will be lobbying strongly at the general election next year. There is a need for rail reform and establishing Great British Railways must be a priority.

Political thinking

It was perhaps brave of Rail Minister Huw Merriman MP to address the gathering. Explaining the cost escalation and weakened business case were the prime reasons for scrapping Phase 2 (e.g. Euston’s cost rising from £2.6 billion to £4.8 billion), he reminded everyone of the benefits from the 140 miles of Phase 1 that will be delivered.

The money saved is to be spent primarily on Network North which will benefit every region with the North being earmarked for £20 billion and the Midlands £10 billion. The intended projects include:

  • Electrification of the North Wales Coast line through to Hull.
  • Sheffield to Manchester and Leeds to be electrified.
  • Improved rail connections and a new station for Bradford.
  • A £2.5 billion provision of a metro system in Leeds.
  • The Midlands Hub including eastwards connections costing £1.7 billion.
  • Remodelling of junctions at Ely to improve freight flow.
  • Putting passengers and freight customers at the heart of policy will be the priority. Rail must meet the needs and work patterns of the population.

This brought some good news out of the cancellation of HS2, and one can only hope that the projects will proceed.

In contrast, the shadow minister of transport, Stephen Morgan, MP for Portsmouth South, gave credit to the dedication of people working in the rail sector and the railway’s huge social value. If elected, he said, the Labour party will concentrate on tackling regional economics, environmental issues, and the provision of a single guiding mind for rail. The HS2 decision represents a huge loss to taxpayers of sunk investment. Yet it needs to be understood why the project was costing so much more than comparable lines in other countries.

Andrew Haines, Network Rail’s chief executive.

There is a need to transform rail investment as the decision time to proceed with infrastructure projects is now typically four and a half years, 65% longer than it took in 2012. Renationalisation is now Labour policy (Rail Engineer notes that NR and almost all train operators are already government controlled). The ambitions of Northern Powerhouse Rail will be broadly accepted by a Labour government.

Regulation, finance, and rail Reform

John Larkinson, the ORR’s CEO confirmed that in CP7 (2024-29) NR will receive £43.1 billion for operations, maintenance, and renewal. The ORR’s train performance targets are more challenging than NR wanted, but cancellations must be reduced. Efficiency targets of £3.2 billion in England & Wales and £410 million in Scotland must be achieved.

Renewals expenditure will be lower than CP6 but maintenance spend will be higher. Hence service affecting failures are forecast to increase by an average of 5%. The overall financial position is unlikely to improve in the short term. The DfT is to put new revenue incentives to the TOCs, and industry processes must be simplified.

Questions on the adoption of digital signalling indicated that NR needs a more proactive approach. It also needs to consider how it will replace GSM-R radio with the new Future Rail Mobile Communication System (FRMCS).

Andrew Haines, Network Rail’s chief executive and Great British Railways (GBR) transition team lead, considered that the contractual split between track and train involves too many complications. Yet the recent King’s speech at the opening of parliament only offered a draft Rail Reform Bill to get GBR established, indicating that it remains an inconclusive objective.

ORR funding, at £6 billion per annum, is a measure of confidence in the industry and must be spent wisely to offer good value. NR must get better at conveying its intent to suppliers. The important drivers are:

  • Maintaining safety performance.
  • Understanding the risk of climate change to train operation and performance.
  • Achieving a more reliable and guaranteed performance to passenger and freight customers.

Some delayed renewals expenditure will increase failures, but renewals must be targeted for best results. An example of this is the Reading Paddington corridor where the London end becomes part of a metro operation for which the route is not really equipped. The introduction of digital signalling must be speeded up with the north of the WCML being an obvious deployment. As to capacity, the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 will mean high speed trains replacing an equal number of existing trains on the WCML north of Lichfield.

From the GBR transition team, Rufus Boyd, commented that railways must be able to adapt. GBR must give collective control, but cities remain the key driver for economic growth and should determine solutions for their areas. Opening new lines (e.g. Okehampton and Borders) are examples of localised growth. Passenger demand is problematic, but it is growing, particularly for leisure travel.

With significant amounts spent on infrastructure, contractor engagement needs to change. A less fractious relationship requires focussing on outputs rather than inputs. The relationship between NR and SE Trains needs to happen elsewhere. GBR has to provide the single guiding mind that is needed to overcome the huge subsidy problem (£4 billion a year; much more than in 2019) The supply chain also wants certainty in continuity of work and transparency on future projects.

This point was emphasised by Colette Carroll, managing director of transportation at AtkinsRéalis who feels that an unpredictable pipeline of work makes it difficult to make the case for investment. There was also no proper focus for the £2 billion R&D investment across the supply chain.

Rail suffers from uncoordinated inertia and complexity which makes projects difficult to deliver. TfL projects in London happen because there is basically one person in charge – the Mayor, with TfL as an informed client, which emphasises the need for a guiding mind.

Rail Minister Huw Merriman MP

Testing and research are also needed. Andrew Johnson from the Global Centre for Rail Excellence (GCRE) emphasised the need for this new test centre in South Wales to test infrastructure and rolling stock in controlled real world conditions. The 7km electrified test loop will allow open access facilities to global manufacturers and down to SMEs. There will be a tiered membership arrangement with innovative commercial partnerships.

Passenger expectations

Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are judged by the experience they offer. Claire Mann, South Western Railway’s managing director, knows that reliability is key. Operating 1,600 trains per day with 4,000 employees, the post-Covid situation is challenging with Waterloo’s peak time passenger numbers being 58% of those in 2019, though weekend travel is busier. Strikes over Driver Only Operation and trying to run too many trains led to a poor service.

Problems between Woking and Waterloo affect the entire network. Running fewer trains has improved reliability, but crowding is now a challenge. The Class 455 suburban trains are ageing and it takes too long to get the replacement trains into service.

All of this demands a culture aligned with customer expectations. A series of workshops aimed at attitude, inclusivity, and culture have been run and new recruitment methods devised. Such initiatives have been successful in keeping people upbeat, with low sickness levels and no TOC specific industrial action for 20 months. With improved performance, customers are more tolerant of bad days. Initiatives such as charity/community partnerships and defibrillators at every station have also helped the cause. Yet there is a need to find ways of delivering services more efficiently.

Referring to the recent Portsmouth line blockade, Claire said this was for essential work, but that bus substitution is both unpopular and difficult to provide. With weekend travel now buoyant, maybe blockades during the week will be tried out.

Steve White, managing director of Southeastern Railway, emphasised the need to align track and train interests. A deal to align the interests of the TOC with Network Rail (Kent) is already yielding positive outcomes. With a taxpayer subsidy of £1 million per day, the need for a more reliable and sustainable railway becomes increasingly urgent. The Class 465/6 fleet is over 30 years old and investment in new rolling stock is needed now.

London’s recently opened Elizabeth Line has transformed journeys from east to west of the Capital. The Northern Line extension to Battersea has been well received and the Piccadilly Line is getting digital signalling and new rolling stock. Stuart Harvey, TfL’s chief capital officer, indicated an ongoing investment spend of £26 billion. Increasing numbers of SMEs are engaged in this, many of which are outside London & the South East. A massive efficiency programme is needed, as well as big efforts to make the case for Crossrail 2 to link South West and North East London.

The commissioning of the next phase of East-West from Bicester to Bletchley / Milton Keynes will bring new journey opportunities. An upgraded Bletchley Bedford line will follow, with many level crossings eliminated. Beth West, the project team’s CEO, indicated the importance of regeneration in Bedford and the challenge of eventually reaching Cambridge for which the preferred route has now been decided.

Levelling up

Martin Tugwell, Transport for the North’s chief executive advised that a strategic transport plan will be published early in 2024 to show how rail could improve connections between the north’s major cities to unlock £118 billion of economic growth.

The tortuous experience of authorising projects is a real issue. For example, it took 10 years to define the Trans Pennine route upgrade. Manchester resilience projects and further WCML upgrades (required due to HS2’s cancellation) are now urgently required, for which local leaders need to agree investment priorities.

Vernon Everitt, Greater Manchester’s transport commissioner, said that the Manchester area is the country’s fastest growing region. The present rail network cannot support this and needs upgraded commuter lines. An integrated transport plan is needed with bus, tram, and local rail services having a single fares structure and ticketing. When asked about the congested Castlefield Corridor, it seems that a tunnelling solution is now favoured.

It is not just about the North, however. Rupert Clubb, chief officer at Transport for the South East, noted the need to improve rail services. Extending HS1 services to Hastings via Ashford, grade separation at East Croydon, and improving services to, from, and between Portsmouth and Southampton, were high on the agenda.

Marketing and customer needs

As obtaining information and buying tickets/reservations online is now the norm, organisations that provide these services need to understand what the customer really needs and make it easy for the customer to navigate. Mike Hyde, chief data officer at Trainline, considered that what precisely people are searching for is a question that needs to be researched. He felt that marketing UK train services to Europe and America is also important.

Martin Howell, director of transport markets, UK&I at Worldline observed that rail is an enabler of social mobility and economic growth. Open data access needs to be accelerated as well as growing the interest in rail and public transport for the upcoming generations. A controversial suggestion was free travel for under 18s to build a loyal customer base.

As a final contribution on marketing, Andy Bagnell, the chief executive of Rail Partners, said that commercial reform is essential. There is too much micro management from the DfT and companies need the commercial freedom to drive recovery by growing revenue in this high fixed cost industry.

Sustainability and pricing

Moving goods around the country is an enormous business and a logistical challenge. Maggie Smith, the director general of Rail Freight Group, asked if more goods could be moved by train if the commercial conditions were improved. The volatility of the market is a worry, and the decline of coal traffic forced the freight companies to chase new customers. Some businesses have plans for transferring to rail but often the response still echoes around the passenger priority. New freight depots have been opened and are trading successfully. Yet freight trains face increased access charges making profitability more difficult. The pricing regime needs to take this into account.

When questioned about why Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) are using diesel instead of electric locomotives due to energy prices, the response emphasised the cost issue. Although diesel is polluting, rail is much less so than the equivalent number of lorries. It is to be hoped that green technology will become a driver of behaviour.

Supplying the industry

Keeping the huge number of people employed in the rail industry gainfully employed is an ongoing challenge in these uncertain times.

Hitachi UK’s sales director, Nick Hughes, explained that his company has 13 facilities across the UK, contributing a total of £645 million gross value per annum. Some 286 Hitachi trains are now in service with more to come. These include HS1’s Class 395, Scotland’s Class 385, and the Class 8XX trains for GWR, LNER, and other long-distance operators. Hitachi supports 9,787 British jobs and is about to acquire Thales to make it one of the major signalling suppliers. The challenges ahead include:

  • Continuity of work.
  • The very large gap in new rolling stock orders.
  • The need to move to green technology and battery train development.
  • The future for the HS2 rolling stock contract.

Similar concerns were raised by Story Plant’s managing director, Emma Porter. On track plant machines have a typical 20-year life with many having a multi-million pounds cost. Yet often it’s not known where they will be deployed in the next 20 days and possessions are regularly cancelled without payment.

During the networking sessions, these concerns were mirrored by many other companies.

Export potential

RIA often organises trade missions to promote exports. Four speakers outlined various export opportunities. They all emphasised the importance of local knowledge and possible partnering with local companies to help understand the culture and commercial & legal frameworks. Export opportunities included:

Neil Walker, RIA’s exports director outlined opportunities in Ireland where €35 billion is about to be spent on transport including €7 billion for rail. This includes expanding the DART including electrification, signalling, and telecoms. RIA is to arrange a trade mission to Dublin in January 2024.

In Australia, David Camerlengo gave details of the $AU 57 billion expansion of the Sydney Metro. In Melbourne, $AU 30-34.5 billion is earmarked for a suburban rail loop including six underground stations. There is also work on a Melbourne to Brisbane freight corridor. The Australia UK free trade agreement should help British companies.

In Portugal, Helena Matos described 14 rail projects on a 1,000km route embracing rolling stock, ETCS and radio, and a new high speed line between Lisbon and Porto.

In Hong Kong there remains a shortage of skilled labour for expansion and renewal of the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). Corin Wilson from the DTI (UK), based in Hong Kong, would welcome British involvement.

National Infrastructure Commission’s chairman, Sir John Armitt.

HS2 and project certainty

Reference to the cancellation of HS2 northwards from Birmingham featured many times at this conference.

Sir John Thompson, HS2’s chair, advised that HS2 was not party to the cancellation decision which has profound implications for the rail sector. Focus will be maintained to deliver Phase 1 and its impressive civil works. 30,000 people are working on the project and there is an in house team for its integration with the existing railway.

The National Infrastructure Commission’s chairman, Sir John Armitt, was much more critical. The HS2 strategy is now in tatters and the decision is very disappointing. Even worse is the decision to sell off the acquired land. A new plan relating to the emerging situation must be created. The challenge is to make the best of Phase 1 as it must not be just a London to Birmingham link. Supplying trains suitable for the WCML northwards of Lichfield will be a key question, e.g. train length and whether to tilt.

The governance of HS2 has been badly handled and mirrors what happened on Crossrail when a two-year delay to the project was announced just two months before the declared opening date. The rail industry still tends to ‘gold plate’ projects. There is no point in spending on things that do not matter to the public. Much of the problem relates to politicians who do not listen to rail experts, only to the voters.

When planning the London Olympics, a press conference was held every four weeks, and all major projects should have this level of openness. The extension of HS2 to Euston cannot expect the private sector to bear all the cost. What confidence is there that other projects will go ahead? The Stonehenge Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing are examples of dithering. There are more requests for schemes than ever the finance will be available for. We can’t afford to keep getting projects wrong; the GW electrification over time and over budget did not help the case for ongoing electrification.

In summary

This conference covered a lot of ground and from it emerged the concerns of both suppliers and organisations anxious to see rail reform. The associated exhibition of suppliers gave hope that innovation in many areas is happening, particularly inside the SMEs. The overall message was the need for continuity of work particularly in the manufacture of rolling stock. Politically and with a general election only a year away, it seems that putting things on hold for that duration will be the likely outcome. One can only hope that the supply industry will be able to survive intact until more certainty is guaranteed. The cancellation of further stages of HS2 became an over-riding feature with an industry mindful that other project cancellations might follow. The next 12 months will be watched very closely.

RIA Annual Conference: a personal perspective

The RIA conference is about issues and opportunities affecting the UK’s railway supply chain, as Clive Kessell reports. But a significant subtext was about people, leadership and attitudes. This was made clear when Martin Howell from Worldline was asked how his career in the military impacted on his work in industry.

Martin had been a Royal Marines officer and said that their form of leadership was intended to bring out the best from those around them. The required behaviours are: courage, determination, selflessness (credit the team for successes, taking the blame for failures; and cheerfulness in the face of adversity).

Claire Mann, managing director at South Western Railway (SWR), displayed those qualities in her keynote, as did Steve White from SouthEastern Trains, who quipped that a Meet the Manager session at Lewisham is not for the faint hearted.

Andrew Haines and John Larkinson focussed on the glass being half full, in that there’s an awful lot the railway community can (and should) do to work together for the benefit of the railway and its customers. We see this often, when everyone pulls together and delivers great success – something Claire Mann illustrated with how SWR transported 5,000 military personnel to and from the King’s Coronation in 2022.

But, returning to Martin Howell and quoting from his recent LinkedIn article. It concluded:

“So are there lessons for business in that year of hard, relentless training (Royal Marines’ basic training)? Maybe so:

Trust your team – show them what’s important to you, by living your values – and the team will follow. If you can’t trust the team or any people in it – do something about that.

Everyone is a leader – because if each person in the team lives and behaves according to those values and beliefs, they will each inspire others to perform better.

Trust your training – years of experience goes into it, and everything is done for a reason.

Have faith in yourself and trust your own judgement.”

That said, I doubt that anyone joining the rail industry would appreciate the tough love that Royal Marine recruits receive from their trainers.

Opportunities for composites in rail

Ask a member of the general public what composites mean to them, and what they are used for, and you are quite likely to get the answer ‘Formula One’.

Which is a correct answer. Formula One race car chasses are made from a composite material – carbon fibre. As you would expect given its usage, they are constructed from a very high-tech composite. Sheets of woven carbon fibres, pre-impregnated with epoxy resin, are cut to shape and carefully laid up into moulds, with the various layers orientated with the weave in different directions.

The finished component is then wrapped into a plastic bag and placed in an autoclave, a high-pressure oven, where it is ‘cooked’ at between 120 and 180°C and at a pressure of around 6 bar (six times atmospheric pressure or 87 pounds per square inch).

The pressure and temperature activate the epoxy resin to produce the finished high-strength and lightweight laminate.

This is all very complex and expensive but is basically the same process that anyone doing repairs to their cars uses to produce fibreglass. The glass-fibre mat is placed in position and the epoxy resin, with the hardener mixed in, is then applied using a paintbrush to soak the fibres. When the hardener goes off, the result is glass-fibre reinforced plastic (GRP) – another composite.

In fact, a composite is just one material that is made up from a number of other materials. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a composite as “a material made up of more than one substance that is used for building things”. Carbon fibre is a composite (carbon and epoxy resin), as is fibreglass and other fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP). It’s nothing new – plywood is a composite, as is chipboard with a wood veneer coating.

Composites are used for many applications, most of them not nearly as demanding in terms of technology as world-class motorsport. Many of the components of a train are composites of one sort or another.

The complex shape of the driver’s cab at the front of many passenger trains is possible due to it being moulded from composite materials. There are strong metal structures underneath for safety and crash protection, but the smooth, curved exterior is a composite moulding.

So too are the interior wall panels, the ceiling, and even the doors.

The flat sides of the carriage are also quite likely to be a composite, though one of a different form. Many coach bodyshells are made from two flat sheets of aluminium sandwiching and bonded to an aluminium honeycomb core that adds bulk and stiffness but keeps the overall panel light.

With the sheer number of applications in rail that utilise composites in one form or another, it is little wonder that the industry was attracted to the recent International Composites Summit, held over two days at the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes. The Railway Industry Association (RIA) organised a short workshop on the morning of the second day, entitled “Composites in Rail: Challenges and Market Opportunities”.

Sam Bemment, RIA’s technical and innovation manager, hosted the session, which highlighted the wide range of applications that already exist for composites in rail as well as developments that are still being undertaken.

Revolution

Eversholt Rail is one of the three rollingstock-owning companies established when the former British Rail was privatised. Since 2015, the company has been owned by the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson and CK infrastructure group. Eversholt Rail’s core business is the acquisition and through-life management of a large and diverse portfolio of passenger rolling stock and freight locomotives, which it leases to UK passenger-train and freight operators.

Eversholt prides itself on being a proactive asset manager, working closely with its customers and suppliers to ensure that its trains meet their ever-increasing market expectations. As part of this activity, the company has a long history of investing in innovative new products and supplies.

Dura Composotes IOW Platform.

Tim Burleigh, head of external relations at Eversholt Rail, described the Revolution Very Light Rail Vehicle (RVLR). The use of composites has played a key role in the development of this vehicle, a novel and low-cost, lightweight alternative to conventional heavy rail vehicles that is targeted at stimulating line re-openings and achieving improved connectivity, particularly in rural areas.

Lightweighting is absolutely fundamental to minimising the cost of operation, Tim explained. The lighter the vehicle is, the less energy it requires to propel it and the less wear it causes to the track and infrastructure on which it runs. Very light rail solutions can also operate on lighter, simpler track forms. The design must be balanced, however, and low vehicle mass must not be achieved at the expense of robustness and reliability.

The use of composite materials for the body on a lightweight, welded steel, ladder frame, and the adoption of a modular design that uses five identical panels to form each side of the body structure, has resulted in a 19-metre-long vehicle capable of 65mph (105km/h) and of seating 56 passengers.

Composites are also used in the drive train, which is 50% lighter than an all-steel equivalent would have been, and 70% of the components in the demonstrator vehicle have been sourced from the UK supply chain, supporting UK employment and minimising the net carbon impact of its manufacture.

The demonstrator is currently under test on a line at Ironbridge in Shropshire.

Infrastructure

Jonathan Howard, head of growth for Dura Composites, spoke of applications for composites on the railway’s infrastructure. “We’re starting to see a cultural change around innovative solutions when it comes to overcoming the big challenges to upgrade and renew the rail industry,” he told his audience.

“The big factor is a new focus on slashing time and slashing costs. Using materials like composites, which are lightweight, we can demonstrate we are able to reduce time on site and time for delivery, but we are also looking at saving time in terms of maintaining that solution.

“We’re also understanding that minimal viable product is being considered for certain applications, where we’re now providing end solutions which are not being over engineered, are not being over specified, but are achieving the client’s end goals.”

With 50% of the railway’s embodied carbon being in its infrastructure, a new focus is being given to whole life carbon costs, not just the carbon content of the material itself. So, lightweight materials, which can be installed without the need for heavy diesel-powered machinery and don’t involve the use of concrete – another high-carbon product – has resulted in carbon reduction of up to 47% on some projects.

As part of a recent project on the Isle of Wight, contractors Hammond and PodTrak installed nine station platforms in 13 weeks. The platforms were built off-site and then delivered and installed by hand. In addition, due to the lightweight platform surface, the quantity of steel in the substructure could be reduced. This reduced the weight of a six-metre section of platform from 26 tonnes for a traditional concrete trestle to 2.5 tonnes for a composite and steel structure.

There are many other applications for composites. Jonathan briefly listed some of them – drainage systems for train washes that reduce the amount of water being dumped on the track, fencing and safety barriers, walkways and permanent formwork for use when cast concrete is the best solution.

Train refurbishment

Lewis Melia, Key Accounts Manager at Gemini Rail, spoke on his own behalf about the use of composites for train refurbishment. These usually call for a train’s interior to be refreshed, with new seat covers and carpets, new LED lights, upgraded Wi-Fi and other improvements. This is a very time and cost-sensitive operation, and there is a very short window to refurbish a train as the train operator wants it back in service as soon as possible.

Huddersfield Carbon Fibre Axle CaFiAx.

There is therefore little time to replace internal components with composites, although many of those items – interior wall and ceiling panels, grab handles and poles, toilet fittings and interior doors – are already of composite construction from when the carriage was first built. A coat of paint and some in-situ repair may be all there is time for during a refurbishment.

However, the wider rolling-stock market, including both mid-life retrofits as well as new build, is working hard to reduce weight and increase the use of composite materials. New vehicles have to be around 20% lighter than the trains they are replacing, as operators strive to reduce both fuel costs and track access charges.

So, lighter materials are being investigated for everything, from running gear to tables, while standards in terms of fire protection and accident resilience are becoming increasingly demanding. Leadership from the top is essential so that manufacturers can reduce weight and carbon while still meeting the various standards and specifications that are imposed on them by the industry’s governing bodies.

Materials

The final properties of any composite material, whether those be weight, strength, or fire resistance, depend largely on their component chemicals. Tom Kugelstadt is group head of technical support at Scott Bader, a global manufacturer of advanced composites, structural adhesives and functional polymers that has been employee-owned since 1951.

The company has manufacturing sites around the world, and this allows it to have close relationships with both component and train manufacturers wherever they may be operating. Furthermore, the ownership model “allows us to be very stable in our long-term thinking and to form great partnerships with our customers and suppliers. This is particularly important for rail, where we need to form long relationships and trust at multiple levels in that chain,” Tom commented.

Previous speakers had already listed a number of applications for composites on a train. design flexibility, scalability, manufacturing processes, corrosion resistance, and strength-to-weight ratio. The requirements for a composite on the nose of a train, constantly facing high speeds and air resistance, are very different to the material used for the side skirts, or for interior mouldings or the flooring within the train. So, it’s not a case of just having one composite solution for rail, it has to be tailored for the specific application within the train, which makes choosing the correct material quite complex.

One of the main things that differentiates rail requirements from many others is the need for fire protection. Globally, the industry seems to be adopting the EN45545 standard, not just in Europe but elsewhere. But Tom’s key point was that everything that goes into the final composite configuration – the combinations of resins, coatings, fibres, foam cells, inserts – all need to come together and still deliver the right level of fire performance for the final component.

As well as fire resistance, weight and strength, there are other considerations such as the method of manufacture, the required UV resistance, the level of surface gloss finish, the use of anti-graffiti coatings and cleaning materials, all of which complicate the designer’s final selection.

Research

Unsurprisingly, much research is being carried out on the use of composites for various rail applications. The University of Huddersfield’s Institute of Railway Research is a Centre of Excellence in Rolling Stock as part of the UK Rail Research Innovation Network. Senior research fellow Samuel Hawksbee outlined some of the work being done on the use of composites in train and locomotive running gear.

The Carbon Fibre Bogie project (CaFiBo) aims to match the properties of existing steel bogies, including the location and functionality of existing pickup points for brakes, suspension and drive train, while achieving a 36% reduction in mass. A prototype bogie, manufactured using a nonwoven carbon fibre mat material made with 100% recycled carbon fibre, has been tested using the university’s Huddersfield Adhesion and Rolling Contact Laboratory Dynamic (HAROLD) test rig that can simulate running at 125mph (201km/h) and is still performing well after eight million cycles.

A carbon-fibre axle (CaFiAx) is also under development in an 18-month joint project with the University of Nottingham and ACS-Australia (Advanced Composite Structures) to minimise track impact damage by reducing the unsprung mass of the axle and to cut CO2 emissions. The idea is to develop a demonstrator prototype that can be taken forward into testing.

Leadership forum

To round off the formal presentations, Dr Faye Smith, chair of the Composites Leadership Forum (CLF) Strategic Engagement Group, explained that the CLF was established in 2009 as a result of the UK Composites Strategy to strengthen leadership in the sector. Its objective is to convene industry and support bodies to understand industry needs and to lobby for and direct support and effort to ensure growth and industrial success for the UK composite sector.

“The CLF was set up because if you’ve got a strategy, you need a body to keep looking at it,” she told delegates.

Huddersfield Caron Fibre Bogie on HAROLD test rig.

Working groups have been established looking at the need for and use of composites in aerospace, defence, automotive, rail, construction, marine, oil & gas, and renewables. The aim is to deliver growth in sectors already using composites through increased productivity, to develop technologies and supply chains for high volume, lower cost production, to establish the capability to manufacturing large structures and so increase the use of composites in other sectors, and to help deliver the green revolution through sustainable, low-carbon, composite solutions.

Dr Smith finished by appealing for volunteers to join in the work of the CLF and help the industry to work together on the future.

Final questions

The panel assembled to take a few last questions. Andy Blake of the National Composites Centre introduced himself and sought to connect with others operating in the composites field. He also discussed a Network Rail contract to encourage the use of composites on railway infrastructure.

Richard Brine of Elemy suggested that discussions should be looking forward to the future rather than looking back at past trends. His company is currently manufacturing 34 structures such as footbridges and rail should be adopting modular design that can be used, in one form or another, almost anywhere on the network.

The UK currently is very quiet in terms of rolling stock orders, and therefore for the composite components that those trains would contain, and a discussion took place on the need for more orders as part of the government’s decarbonisation strategy. RIA has recently published a report on “The UK Rolling Stock Industry: Making 2023 the year of opportunity not crisis” and this strategy was supported by delegates as a way of smoothing out the ‘boom and bust’ procurement policy, creating conditions for increased productivity and reducing whole life cost.  After a couple of discussions on cost, risk, and return on investment for train operators, Sam Bemment thanked delegates and the panel for their participation in a most interesting morning event and released them to have a look around the main exhibition.

Track renewals on heritage railways

As heritage railways around the country have enjoyed what was hopefully a busy summer period, it is worth remembering what an industrious winter many of those railways had prior to the summer. Many now operate ‘Santa’ or ‘Illuminated’ specials in the run up to and over the Christmas holiday which tends to be a busy, and for some, lucrative operational period. But outside of the Christmas period, many heritage railways take the opportunity that the lower patronage gives, to shut down their passenger operations and carry out critical maintenance and renewal activities to their infrastructure, locomotives, and rolling stock.

This article covers two very different heritage railways that did just that last winter, replacing critical parts of their trackwork including switches and crossings (S&C). These two are the North Norfolk Railway (NNR) that runs from Sheringham to Holt on the North Norfolk Coast, and the Romney, Hythe, and Dymchurch Railway (RDHR) narrow gauge railway that operates between Hythe and Dungeness on the South Kent Coast. Both have taken a very different approach to the trackwork, and both have completed the work at far less cost than the S&C renewals on the mainline railway, although that is a bit unfair as we are not comparing apples with apples. Nevertheless, there are learning points that the mainline railway may be able to pick up on to help control and reduce its capital expenditure and unit costs.

It must be pointed out that although the costs of S&C renewals are much lower on the heritage railways, the works involved represent a huge investment for both railways. For the NNR it was the major capital investment of the year. Consequently, these renewals are not seen as everyday, or indeed, every year activities.

The existing Weybourne layout.

NNR S&C Renewals

The S&C renewals carried on the NNR consisted of a new crossover and a turnout at Weybourne, mid-way along the five-mile-long railway. The location of the S&C is critical to the operation of the railway, the crossover providing an operational route from the double line platform at Weybourne to the single line to and from Sheringham. In addition, the renewal included a turnout to the railway’s main maintenance depot and engine shed.

The existing track was a very old and worn bullhead layout, operated by point machines. Much of the trackwork was manufactured in 1940, during the Second World War. The timber bearers and sleepers were showing signs of decay and the wear on the head of the stock and switch rails in the S&C was approaching critical limits, with evidence of the wheel flanges contacting the oversail which the point operating equipment connects to at the toes of the switches. To maintain the track gauge on some of the timbers, particularly in the turnouts, tie bars had been fitted for additional restraint.

Various options to either refurbish or renew the track were considered by the NNR. Doing nothing was not an option due to the condition. The NNR has a very small but able track maintenance capability, but refurbishment using just its available resources was too big a job.

Therefore, the decision was made to carry out a complete renewal of the S&C. The railway contracted Trackwork Ltd to carry out the work as the NNR had previously successfully employed it to renew part of the track layout at Sheringham.

The scope of contract included survey, design, manufacture, delivery, and installation of the three units of S&C and the associated plain line trackwork. The signalling works were carried out by the NNR’s in-house experts.

Pragmatic approach

While the NNR aims for heritage realism and bullhead rail section would have been the preferred option the availability and increased cost, along with ease of ongoing maintenance, meant the railway decided to renew the track in flat bottom vertical material, the designs and components for which were readily available.

The survey was carried out and the design developed and accepted by the NNR which is fortunate to have access to two former British Rail track design engineers to review and accept the track design.

It also had the internal signalling expertise which allowed it to disconnect the signalling equipment including the existing point operating machines, and refit and test the machines and signalling associated with the track renewals once the trackwork was installed.

The renewals at Weybourne were carried out from 16 January to 3 February 2023, during the winter ‘no-train period’ with a team from Trackwork Doncaster basing themselves in Norfolk while the work was undertaken. The plan for the work was developed by Trackwork and agreed by the NNR.

Following removal of the existing track, which consisted of a crossover, turnout, and plain line, the ballast was skimmed to a depth of some 50mm below the new sleepers and bearers. The ballast removed was stockpiled for removal from site towards the end of the project. The new ballast was also stockpiled in the adjacent sidings so it could be reached and utilised as required.

The track was re-laid using the road rail vehicle (RRV) and manual labour, taking care not to cripple the new S&C during the lifting arrangements. Apart from the single RRV, the renewal was mainly carried out using traditional methods. The new track work is jointed with fishplates used to join the various rails. Nylon encapsulated ‘666’ insulated fishplates were used to separate the track circuits, and junction fishplates used to link the new flatbottom rail to the existing bull head rail.

When installed, the track was lifted to the correct level using track jacks. The ballast was then packed beneath the sleepers and bearers using a tamping bank mounted upon the RRV. The final alignment adjustment and re-ballasting was undertaken manually prior to the final fitment of the signalling equipment and the associated signal testing. The existing point machines were re-used with new cabling back to the location cases.

The work was completed to time with some follow-up work to the plain line sections either side of the S&C undertaken following a few weeks of traffic running over the new track.

For a heritage railway like the NNR, work like this represents a huge investment. However, without reliable points at a key location at the entrance to the railway’s main depot at Weybourne, the railway cannot reliably function, so the NNR sees it as a worthwhile investment. The overall cost of the works was in the order of £400,000 including disposal of materials and contaminated ballast as well as signalling costs, giving a unit rate per turnout of around £135,000.

The worn switch and stock rails with witness marks showing the wheel flanges impacting on the oversails.
Timber condition with loss of track gauge.
Ballast removed from the track and stockpiled using a wagon hauled by the road rail vehicle.

RHDR Track Renewals

The RHDR narrow gauge railway is a very different heritage railway from the various standard gauge railways around the country. It is often known as Kent’s mainline railway in miniature, with some wonderful scale steam locomotives operating on the route as well as a couple of diesel locomotives.

The railway has some 21 miles of track stretching 13.5 miles from Hythe to the northeast to Dungeness in the south. The main depot is located at New Romney.

First opened in 1927, the railway has a track gauge of just 15” (15 1/8” to be precise with 15 1/4” through the points). It is one of just a few passenger-carrying railways, including the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway and the Bure Valley Railways, that operate with this track gauge, making its infrastructure fairly unique. While, in some respects, working with track of this gauge and scale makes some activities easier than on standard gauge track, it also brings its own issues and problems.

The route is laid across part of Romney Marsh, meaning much of it is founded on wetlands with marsh and shingle formation. None of these are the ideal foundation material for a railway and, as a result, parts of the railway are prone to movement and settlement.

The railway went through a period of decline in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Its saviour was Sir William McAlpine who purchased the railway in 1963. For many years, apart from short lengths of renewals, the policy for managing the track was to carry out patch repairs.

Significant renewals

It was not until 2017 that the RHDR took the decision to restart significant plain line track renewals. These targeted the older, poorer sections of track, some of which were still formed of 25lb or 30lb/yd rail. It is believed the oldest of this rail saw service in and around the trenches during the first world war.

In the winter of 2017, some 1.8 miles of plain line track were re-laid. The plain line track renewal programme has continued each winter since then, despite the covid pandemic adding to the challenges of safely delivering the work.

The work is carried out by the very small, dedicated track team employed by the railway, along with some of the railways operational staff who during the operational season carry out other duties, and a few hardy volunteers. Contract staff are sometimes employed to operate the excavator machinery.

The new rail section used on the railway is 35lb/yd flat bottom profile, mounted vertically upon softwood sleepers. On plain line the rail is held in place with traditional dog spikes in pre-drilled holes. This arrangement, although traditional and cost-effective, can present the railway with a rail creep problem which can in turn lead to potential track buckling risks in warmer weather and rail joints opening in colder weather. To overcome the creep, the railway has developed a special rail clamp that is fitted to the sleepers towards the middle of the panels of track.

Winter 2022/2023 saw 1,380 yards of plain track re-laid with sites at Hythe and both tracks through Romney Sands station. In addition, four new sets of points or turnouts were installed. The renewal of all the points was driven by the condition of the pointwork which required significant maintenance input to maintain the reliability.

The new turnouts were designed and manufactured by KGJ Price Railway Contractors Ltd in their Caerphilly Depot. They were fitted with additional gauge retaining soleplates with spring clip housings welded to them. Because of the smaller gauge and relatively light weight construction each of the turnouts were delivered and installed in just two panels.

The RHDR undertook all the S&C installation including the associated signalling works, employing a local HIAB contractor to transport the panels from RHDRs track depot at New Romney. The HIAB was then used to lift and lower the track panels in place.

The track being lifted to the design level by jacks while the RRV tamps and compacts the ballast.
The finished track installation, awaiting the fitment of the stretcher bars on the switches.
NNR signalling team fitting the stretcher bars along with the refitting and setting up the point operating equipment.

Two of the new turnouts were installed at either end of the loop at Romney Sands Station. Apart from minor alterations to their positioning to improve the track alignment, these turnouts were renewed in the same location as the turnouts they replaced. The third turnout renewed was at the entry and exit to the Dungeness Loop, known as Brittania Points.

This Brittania Points turnout was moved approximately 50 metres towards Dungeness to improve the alignment both off the loop, and the overall alignment on the through, straight route. The existing turnout was positioned at a change of direction of the track which tended to lose its alignment and distort in hot weather. Its repositioning improved this alignment and reduced a section of double track railway which passed through one of the occupation crossings, thus reducing ongoing maintenance requirements.

The re-positioning of the turnout also made the renewal operation easier as the track panels for the new turnout could be located by a road mounted HIAB crane from the occupation crossing. The HIAB was unable to operate beyond the crossing area as the surrounding shingle is part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area, with strict criteria in place to manage this nationally important area.

The signalling alterations were carried out by the in-house signalling team, where possible, re-using the existing signalling detection equipment. The points, themselves are sprung with the normal position being for the straight track allowing clockwise movements around the Dungeness Loop.

The final location of the new Brittania Points turnout resulted in a much improved alignment on both the straight track and the turnout route. The improvements were soon noted by the drivers on the route.

The fourth turnout was installed on the Up Line at New Romney giving access to the maintenance depot. This was the easiest of the four turnouts to install with access for the HIAB immediately adjacent to the site, meaning the S&C panels could be lowered from the HIAB straight into their final position.

Steam Locomotive 10 operating on the RDHR.

Helping hand

The RHDR relies heavily on volunteers to support these types of activities and, where possible, re-uses materials and components. They used a flexible workforce, many of whom, in the operational period, are operating the trains, but when there is no service, support the track and engineering teams to carry out the various seasonal roles.

These factors, along with the smaller scale of the RHDR help to bring down the unit costs per turnout to less than £20,000. Nevertheless, like on the NNR, these costs still represent a very significant investment for the RHDR.

While neither of these two projects can be directly compared with the mainline railway, there is a huge variance in the unit costs involved per turnout between the £20,000 on the RHDR, £135,000 on the NNR, and often in excess of £1 million on mainline infrastructure.

Apart from the use of volunteers to support the installation, the mainline railway could benefit from reviewing the scoping, especially on lower speed layouts, increased daytime working on lower category routes, less paperwork, less bureaucracy, less project management, flexibility of workforce, and greater use of in-house expertise including signalling personnel.

Readers wishing to volunteer with either the NNR or RHDR can contact:

North Norfolk Railway: [email protected]

Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway: [email protected]

Mining risk management A new mature approach

All railway assets have to be managed so the risk of failure and hazards arising are as As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). ALARP involves balancing the reduction in risk against the time and cost of achieving the risk reduction. This is the point at which the time, trouble, difficulty, and cost of further measures become unreasonably disproportionate to the additional risk reduction.

Mining features underlie approximately 29% of the railway network in Britain, which includes significant lengths of both the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines. As such, whenever construction takes place on any railway, for example new structures for electrification, the risk from existing infrastructure, such historic mining features, must be managed safely and efficiently to ensure the construction project provides value for money. There are several ways mining risk is managed during construction projects, and it is something which can be very time consuming and expensive.

The North West and Central region of Network Rail is introducing a Guidance Note (GN), ‘NW&C Guidance Note for Electrification in Mining Risk Areas & Associated Civils’, which will provide a more consistent and effective approach to managing mining risk during electrification projects. By adopting ALARP principles which are embedded in the GN, projects have the potential to reduce the cost and time to install new assets associated with electrification, while managing the risks arising from mining.

Naturally, with rail being one of the safest modes of transport, everyone wants to construct a safe railway, but rail needs to be an affordable option for travellers and freight operators, otherwise customers will use other modes of transport which are not as inherently safe or carbon friendly. So overengineering rail assets can result in increasing the overall societal risk of transport. This is why cost must always be a factor in managing safety and is a fundamental of ALARP.

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) also recognise ALARP. CDM 2015 says that the principal designer must, as far as reasonably practicable, ensure that the design team eliminates the risks associated with design elements. If this is not possible (for instance because of disproportionate costs) then the remaining risks must be reduced or controlled. This is also one of the founding principles behind the management of mining risk for electrification projects set out within the GN.

Early collaboration

Gerry Manley, director CIL Geotechnics, and a very experienced railway geotechnical engineer has prepared the mining GN, with input from a wide range of Network Rail engineers including Mark Banham, programme engineering manager Capital Delivery NW Enhancements. Importantly it has also been subject to a comprehensive and challenging peer review by a group of very well-respected independent industry experts, made up of: Professor Andrew McNaughton; Ady Koe, chief geotechnical Engineer AtkinsRéalis; Chris Milne, senior engineering manager, J Murphy & Sons; and Tim Young, SPL Powerlines UK. It took a year to produce the GN and obtain cross industry support, but Gerry and all involved with its production welcome any feedback and further opportunities to develop additional efficiencies.

The GN encourages collaboration of all stakeholders at the very early stages of a project with a mining risk, so that all stakeholders are consulted and agree that existing and any future residual mining risk can be managed as ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU). This will be supported by a project Mining Risk Assessment (MRA) and Mining Risk Mitigation Remit (MRMR). Early, and continued, collaboration is important, as any change in a project could adversely affect cost and timescales.

In line with NR/L2/CIV/191 Mining Manual, the MRA and MRMR are used to establish a consistent, mature approach on the process and application of relevant standards. The GN reminds everyone that the MRA must consider all relevant mining records and an assessment of the existing mining risks, as well as any changes in risk as a result of the proposed works.

The MRMR will take into account all the locations and work types highlighted within the MRA. All decisions to deal with mining issues must be justified and deliver the agreed outcomes specified by the client, and deliver the best balance between residual risk and cost. The GN also encourages the use of the Mining Risk Ranking System (MRRS), which is an existing Excel-based tool developed specifically for risk-ranking existing known mining hazards that may have an adverse impact on the railway.

Safety consequences

A Common Consequence Tool (CCT) is available to estimate the potential safety consequences (fatalities and injuries to train occupants) arising from a train derailment, independent of the cause of derailment, ranging from 1 (lowest consequence) to 20 (highest consequence). This can be used to consider the impact of projects and to identify any grossly disproportionate safety measure costs. A Decision Support Tool (DST) is an Excel spreadsheet to deliver the outputs of the MRRS to assist in prioritising the investigation and mitigation of mining hazards.

Explicit Risk Estimation (ERE) is a process to assess the risk associated with a given mining hazard, taking into account the likelihood and the severity of the resulting accident, with the risk expressed in Fatalities and Weighted Injuries (FWI) per year. This can be used to identify any grossly disproportionate costs for additional safe measures to mitigate any future mining features failure.

The scope and application of GN was developed for electrification projects carried out under Network Rail’s permitted development rights in the North West & Central region. These include typical works such as: overhead line stanchion foundations; signal foundations; bridge works – re-decking, jacking, and parapet raising; track works; platform refurbishment/extensions; temporary works, compounds, access roads, crane and working platforms; light weight structures such as – undertrack crossings (UTXs), drainage, ducting, equipment locations, ancillary civils bases; and retaining walls. However, the principles of GN have the potential to apply to many other projects and throughout Network Rail.

Summary

The GN is a very welcome initiative to provide a more consistent ALARP and effective approach to managing mining risk during electrification projects, which will hopefully be adopted nationally. It clarifies the process to identify mining risk to the safe operational railway and to avoid grossly disproportionate mitigation costs. The GN does this by requiring early stakeholder engagement with agreement on responsibilities. It promotes the identification of construction and loading risks, and their reasonable mitigation, and encourages best practice management of mining risk during construction.

The GN will encourage all parties to consistently work together to create less uncertainty, better supply chain relations, and reduce consultancy and construction costs. This should increase confidence in programme delivery for the benefit of everyone.

Well done to all involved in producing the GN and providing a mature approach to the management of mining risk when delivering electrification projects.

ALARP or SFAIRP – What’s the difference?

When managing infrastructure risk, SFAIRP is an abbreviation for ‘So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable’ and ALARP is an abbreviation of ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’. This article will look at the difference between SFAIRP and ALARP, explain the legal implications and what good practice looks like.

Within the rail industry there are some who may wonder if the terms SFAIRP and ALARP mean the same thing or not. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides good guidance on its website, which includes that SFAIRP and ALARP mean essentially the same thing. SFAIRP is the term most often used in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HASAWA) and in regulations, with ALARP being a term mainly used by people such as risk specialists and infrastructure managers. Infrastructure managers are referred to as duty-holders by the HSE.

The HSE’s view is that the terms SFAIRP and ALARP are interchangeable, except when drafting formal legal documents when then the correct legal phrase of SFAIRP must be used. ALARP is probably used by many as it is simpler to pronounce!

Both terms are based on the concept of ‘reasonably practicable’. This involves weighing a risk against the trouble, time, and money needed to control the risk, which is called the ‘sacrifice’ by the HSE. An important thing to note is that not having the required budget to control a risk isn’t within the definition of ‘reasonably practicable’. So the SFAIRP argument can’t be used just to simply save money. 

Reasonably practicable

The reasonably practicable term has been enshrined in UK case law since the case of Edwards v. National Coal Board in 1949. The definition set out by the Court of Appeal in its judgment was:

“’Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time, or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice.”

Quite simply, making sure a risk has been reduced SFAIRP/ALARP is about weighing the risk against the effort and resource to further reduce it. However, the decision is weighted in favour of health and safety because the presumption is that the duty-holder should implement the risk reduction measure. To avoid having to make this sacrifice, the duty-holder must be able to show that it would be ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the benefits of risk reduction that would be achieved. The process is not one of balancing the costs and benefits of measures, but of adopting measures – except where they are ruled out because they involve grossly disproportionate sacrifices.

A simple example is given in the HSE guidance. To spend £1 million to prevent five staff suffering bruised knees is grossly disproportionate; but to spend £1 million to prevent a major explosion capable of killing 150 people is proportionate.

Of course, in reality it is never as simple as this and many decisions about risk and the controls to achieve SFAIRP/ALARP are not easy, as we will show. Factors come into play such as ongoing costs set against remote chances of one-off events (which can be often the case in rail), or daily expense and supervision time required to ensure that, for another example given by the HSE, “employees wear ear defenders set against a chance of developing hearing loss at some time in the future”.

It requires careful judgment by safety experts. There is no simple formula for computing what is SFAIRP/ALARP, and it can get very complicated.

Including gross disproportion means that an SFAIRP/ALARP judgement is not a simple cost benefit analysis, but is weighted to favour carrying out the safety improvement. The HSE recommends that the bias towards safety “has to be argued in the light of all the circumstances applying to the case and the precautionary approach that these circumstances warrant”. More detailed SFAIRP /ALARP guidance is available from the HSE website.

The reasonably practicable test was enshrined in UK Law in HASAWA, as the duty to ensure SFAIRP. This was also when the HSE was established who then became the regulator for the HASAWA 1974. The regulations have evolved over time and there is now a considerable library of rail industry case law, and the concept of reasonably practicable has been well established in the courts.

The ‘ALARP Triangle’ is a tool for determining risk tolerability that was created by the HSE. It is only a tool though and will not provide a definitive answer whether something is SFAIRP/ALARP. There are three ‘zones’ in the triangle:

Intolerable – the HSE consider any risks in this area too high and will not be accepted.

Tolerable if ALARP – in this area a case can be made as to why a risk is SFAIRP/ALARP.

Broadly acceptable – the risk is so low that it is not reasonable to spend additional time, effort and money looking for ways to reduce the risk further; but the risk must be managed in accordance with standards and good practice.

Broadly acceptable does not mean ‘do nothing’ and does not absolve anyone of their legal duties. If any reasonably practical measures are identified, they must be implemented.

Societal concerns

Societal concerns can arise when the manifestation of a risk impacts society as a whole. This often occurs when managing risk in the rail industry, as the impact of a serious incident can produce an adverse societal response. This can result in a loss of confidence by society in the provisions and arrangements in place for protecting people, and a loss of trust in the industry to control hazards. This might arise where large numbers of people are harmed at the same time and society having a greater aversion, for example, to an incident harming 10 people, than to 10 incidents harming one person each.

HSE considers that risk and sacrifice must be assessed in its social context. So as well as taking account of individual risk, HSE considers societal concerns. It says it believes it is right that the judgment as to whether measures are grossly disproportionate should reflect societal risk, that is to say, large numbers of people (employees or the public) being harmed at once.

Continual improvement

Even after a SFAIRP/ALARP case has been made, duty holders must carry out continual improvements.  As technology develops, new and better methods of risk control become available. Duty-holders should review what is available and consider whether they need to implement new controls.

This does not mean that the best risk controls available are necessarily reasonably practicable. It is only if the cost of implementing any new methods of control is not grossly disproportionate to the reduction in risk they achieve. It may not be reasonably practicable to upgrade older equipment to modern standards. However, there may still be other measures that are required to reduce the risk to SFAIRP/ALARP. This could be by implementing partial upgrades or alternative measures.

Changes in knowledge about the size or nature of the risk presented by a hazard will also affect SFAIRP/ALARP. If there is evidence to show that a hazard presents a significantly greater risk than previously identified, then stronger controls may be required. However, if the evidence shows the hazard presents significantly less risk than previously assessed, then a relaxation in the controls provided and new arrangements could ensure the risks are still SFAIRP/ALARP.

Some organisations may implement standards of risk control that are more stringent than good practice. They may do this to meet corporate social responsibility goals or because they have agreed with their staff to provide additional controls. It does not follow that these risk control standards are reasonably practicable just because a few organisations have adopted them.

It must also be remembered that SFAIRP/ALARP does not represent zero when managing engineering risk. The risk arising from a hazard may occur sometime, even though the risk is SFAIRP/ALARP, which could result in harm. This may be an uncomfortable thought to some, but it has to be accepted that the risk from an activity can never be entirely eliminated, unless the activity is stopped completely. The “tolerability” of a risk is covered in detail in ‘Reducing Risks, Protecting People’ published by the HSE. This also goes some way to explaining why risk assessments need to feed into infrastructure risk contingency planning.

Developments in fibre optic telecoms cable

We hear a lot about the ‘digital railway’ and applications which use data networks, and at the heart of any telecoms network are fibre optic cables. Individual optical fibres in the cable carry short wavelength light pulses and are used in conjunction with digital transmission systems to transmit and receive data. There have been huge developments in fibre technology over the years, particularly over the last 10 years or so with the introduction of dense ribbon fibre technology.

The industry has now shifted from loose tube to ribbon construction and, where fibre cables of say 24 fibre (f) or 48f were used, nowadays Network Rail is already installing cables with hundreds of fibres of a similar diameter, and suppliers are supplying cables for networks outside of rail with thousands of individual fibres.

The introduction of fibre optic technology revolutionised telecom cable networks for railways. Fibre optic cables are small and light (compared to copper multipair cables) and can be used to transmit very high data rates. Fibre cables are far more future proof than copper and the data transmission rates will extend beyond today’s fibre ethernet speeds of up to 400Gbps. For example, Verizon and Cisco have completed a trial in metro Long Island, New York, in which they carried 1.2Tbps of data using a single wavelength fibre optic link.

Dense Wavelength Divisional Multiplexing (DWDM) technology can also be used to increase data capacity. These systems use Frequency Division Multiplex (FDM) and many different wavelengths of light over single mode fibre. In this way many transmission links can be overlaid onto the same fibre, to significantly increase capacity.

Immunisation

Fibre is ideal for electrified railways as it is immune to the effects of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), which can cause performance challenges and safety concerns with copper-based systems. Fibre cable can also be run next to other sensitive equipment without performance or interference concerns. There is no metallic path between equipment, so they are electrically isolated. There is no scrap value either, so the risk from theft is greatly reduced.

The distance between transmission nodes can be increased significantly compared to copper cabling. Early fibre cables were multimode, but were quickly superseded by single mode fibre typically using a 1310 nanometre (nm) wavelength with improved attenuation and bandwidth. Multimode fibre carries multiple light rays or modes simultaneously, each at a marginally different reflection angle inside the optical fibre core. Single mode fibre only uses one mode of light, with a very small light-carrying core of a few micrometre (µm) diameter. This results in vast-distance, low loss signal transmission. Ideal for high-speed networks over a long distance.

Multimode cable remains cheaper and can still be used on short haul applications, typically in buildings. Early cables typically contained 8 or 12 fibres positioned within a loose tube construction with typically a GRP central strength member. Fibre count within cables has increased and high core count ribbon cables containing 432 fibres are now being installed on rail routes.

Bending

Fibre cables, being much smaller than copper equivalents, can be rolled onto a drum in much greater lengths, and require less joints when installed trackside. However, care has to be taken during the design and installation not to bend the fibre cable too tightly, though modern ribbon cable uses intermittently bonded fibre so there are minimal bending issues. Some cable designs have strength members imbedded in the outer sheath and while they do exhibit a preferential bend this does not limit installation and storage.

Tools

Floor to ceiling Optical Distribution Frame ODF.

The essential tools for working on fibre are a fusion splicer and an Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (OTDR).

A splicer effectively heats and welds the fibre together. Early models required the jointer to align the two ends mechanically using a built-in microscope and it was a skilled task that took a relatively long time to perform, but now the process is automated. Ribbon cable technology has also made jointing easier and sped up the installation process, as a single ribbon of 12 fibres is spliced as one. With some good planning, this can restore critical services much sooner than a traditional single fibre splice repair. The 432f ribbon cable used by Network Rail can be installed in less than five hours compared to over 20 hours for a loose tube equivalent.

The 432f ribbon cable is also armoured with corrugated steel tape.

The OTDR is used to send pulses of light down a fibre and measure any reflection that occurs, to identify any problems in the cable. A poor joint or deteriorating fibre connection will result in a higher reflection reading, with the OTDR indicating the distance to the problem.

Spare network bandwidth or individual fibres can also be leased to others for commercial telecoms purposes. The introduction of dense ribbon fibre cables with hundreds of fibres has made the leasing of individual fibres to third parties even more attractive. Commercial data centre networks are becoming more widely distributed and require fibre links to connect them. They are also operating at increasingly higher speeds with Ethernet applications moving from 10Gbps to 400Gbps and more. Any lease agreements will need to take into account the priority of telecoms services for railway operational purposes, and the maintenance arrangements. Commercial telecoms operators need to be aware that it is not easy to gain railway trackside access to repair or modify fibre cables.

  Dense ribbon ‘high count’ fibre also provides the opportunity to allocate dedicated fibres for other railway applications such as safety critical signalling and electric traction control purposes. Outside of rail there is huge investment in fibre technology to provide Gbps connections to homes, known as Fibre To The Home (FTTH). This is resulting in all kinds of fibre equipment such as distribution connectors, fibre cables, termination devices, tools, and skilled people being available to help install local railway fibre distribution networks.

An Optical Distribution Frame (ODF) is used to provide cable interconnections and integrate fibre splicing, fibre optic adapters, and tray connectors in a single unit. ODFs are mainly supplied as wall mount or floor / rack mount. Wall mount ODFs look like a small box and are suitable for fibre cables with small counts. Rack mount ODFs offer greater flexibility according to the fibre optic cable counts and most rack mount ODFs use the 19’’ equipment rack format. This means they can be installed on the commonly used standard transmission racks.

Factory-made patch cables with ready-made termination connectors are also available, which can be easily spliced into a nearby fibre cable joint. This reduces the time to install and increases reliability and availability by providing consistent quality terminations.

Cable routes

When the Network Rail Fixed Telecoms Network (FTN) was provided to support the roll out of GSM- R, a 24f cable with a double insulated and steel wound armoured sheath was developed. This was known as Double Insulated Super Armoured Cable (DISAC), used for installation on routes where no other cables were being installed, and it saved on the cost of a cable route being provided. This was the right decision at the time, but the production, shipping, and installation of a fibre armoured cable has issues.

The industry needs to become much more carbon conscious, and specifying a steel wire armoured cable similar to the 24f DISAC will have a significant carbon impact. How many thousands of trees would need to be planted trackside to offset the carbon from manufacturing, shipping, and installing a lengthy steel wire armoured cable, and how would the resulting leaf fall risk be managed? Therefore, it may be better to install a cable route and use a commercially available shock absorbing fibre cable. Any device at the end of a fibre will need a power supply, so a cable route may be needed anyway.

Summary

When data networks first started to appear, connections of only a few Kbps were provided over copper cables. Copper cables to are susceptible to EMI and require expensive immunisation protection, and are at risk from theft. Fibre cables however are smaller, lighter, easier to install, and are immune from these problems, and they can transmit and receive data rates of many Gbps. The development and introduction of fibre ribbon cables with huge fibre counts now means dedicated fibres can be allocated for low data rate applications to assure security, and be provided for third part leasing to create benefits for society and a welcome funding source for rail. What’s not to like? Many thanks to Tim Jones of Amey and Andrew Black of Fujikura Europe for their assistance with this article. 

1...678...292Page 7 of 292