Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Section Activities
A round up of recentactivities in our Sections
AS PUBLISHED IN
The Journal April 2017 Volume 135 Part 2
2
INSTITUTION MATTERS
Our online events calendar holds all
of our Section meetings.
You’ll also find full contact details on
our website.
BIRMINGHAM
CROYDON & BRIGHTON
DARLINGTON & NORTH EAST
EDINBURGH
GLASGOW
IRISH
LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE
LONDON
MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL
MILTON KEYNES
NORTH WALES
NOTTINGHAM & DERBY
SOUTH & WEST WALES
THAMES VALLEY
WESSEX
WEST OF ENGLAND
WEST YORKSHIRE
YORK
Sections
3
INSTITUTION MATTERS
SECTION CONTACTS BIRMINGHAMChairman David WebbDeputy Chairman Craig GreenSecretary Richard Quigley07715 [email protected] VENUESThe Wellington Pub, 37 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham, B2 5SN at 17:00 2nd Floor, Network Rail, Baskerville House, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2NDLunchtime meetings 12:30 for a prompt 12:45 start - 14:00 finishEvening meetings at 17:00
CROYDON & BRIGHTON Chairman Mike CurthoysSecretary Martin Cresswell 07815 [email protected] MEETING VENUEMott MacDonald House, Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE, at 17:30 for 17:45 start. Meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month
DARLINGTON & NORTH EASTChairman Glenn MelvinSecretary Walter Clarke07866 [email protected] VENUESRailway Athletic Club, Brinkburn Road, Darlington at DL3 9LF at 18.30 refreshments from 18:15 & Newcastle College Rail Academy, William Street, Felling, Gateshead, NE10 0JP at 16:45 refreshments from 16:00
EDINBURGH SECTION Chairman Andrew BlakeleySecretary Bob Gardiner07771 [email protected] VENUEUpstairs function room of The Scots Guards Club, 2 Clifton Terrace, opposite Haymarket Station, Edinburgh, EH12 5DR at 18:00
GLASGOW SECTION Chairman Tom WilsonSecretary Jack Scott01419 522562 / 07789 [email protected] MEETING VENUEWSP Offices, 7th Floor, 110 Queen Street, Glasgow, G1 3BX at 17:30 refreshments from 17:00
IRISH SECTIONChairman Nick WestSecretary Joe Walsh00 353 [email protected] VENUEThe Ashling Hotel, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, Ireland; The Prince of Wales Hotel, Church Street, Athlone, Co.Westmeath - located in the centre of Athlone Station; The Brookfield Suite, Hilton Hotel, 4 Lanyon Place, Belfast - located across the road from the main entrance to Central Station
LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE Chairman John ParkerSecretary Philip Benzie01704 [email protected] VENUESStation Hotel, Butler Street, Preston, PR1 8BN (adjacent to Preston station) 17:30 for 18:00; Royal Station Hotel, Carnforth, LA5 9BT (adjacent to Carnforth station) 17:30 for 18:00; Network Rail, North Union House, Christian Road, Preston, PR1 2NB at 1600 for 16:30; Network Rail, Upperby Yard, Tyne Street, Carlisle CA1 2NP at 1600 for 16:30
LONDONChairman Jonathan BraySecretary Thomas Utley07885 732231 [email protected] VENUE10th Floor, London Underground, 55 Broadway, London, SW1H 0BD, above St. James Park tube 17:30 for 18:00
MANCHESTER & LIVERPOOLChairman David WoodsSecretary Richard Wells07817 [email protected] VENUES ARUP - 6th Floor, 3 Piccadilly Place, Manchester, M1 3BN at 17.00 for 17.30 & SQ1 - Network Rail Offices, Square One, 4 Travis Street, Manchester, M1 2NY, at 12.30 for 13.00 start or 17.00 for 17.30
MILTON KEYNESChairman James DeanSecretary Kevin Thurlow0121 345 3158 / 07802 [email protected] VENUEAuditorium, The Quadrant, Network Rail, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes, MK9 1EN at 17:00
NORTH WALESChairman Alastair RobertsSecretary Lynne Garner 07771 [email protected] MEETING VENUEThe Town Crier Inn, City Road, Chester, CH1 3AE at 18:30 light refreshments at 18:00
NOTTINGHAM & DERBYChairman Andy PackhamSecretary Stacey Johnson 07587 [email protected] VENUESAston Court Hotel, opposite Derby station, Derby at 18:30 & Jurys Inn Hotel, Station Street, Nottingham at 18:30
SOUTH & WEST WALESChairman Andy FranklinSecretary Andrew Wilson07974 [email protected] VENUENetwork Rail Office, Fifth floor, 5 Callaghan Square, Cardiff at 18:00
THAMES VALLEYChairman Jeremy SmithSecretary Malcolm Pearce01635 550326 / 07967 [email protected] MEETING VENUENetwork Rail’s Davidson House Offices, Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading, RG1 3EU at 17:45 refreshments available from 17:00
WESSEX Chairman Colum CavanaghSecretary Kenneth Newell07771 [email protected] VENUESThe Rose and Crown, Columbo Street, Waterloo, London, SE1 8DP from 17:15 for 18:00 & The Eastleigh Railway Institute, 2 Romsey Road, Eastleigh, Southampton, SO50 9FE, from 17:15 for 18:00
WEST OF ENGLANDChairman: Steve PearsonSecretary: Harshini K.V.Janaki 01793 [email protected] VENUERoom 3.9, Network Rail’s SN1 Offices, Station Road, Swindon SN1 2DH & Arup Auditorium, 63 St Thomas Street, Bristol BN1 6JZ
WEST YORKSHIRE Chairman Morris SmithSecretary: Martin Wooff07487 [email protected] MEETING VENUEThe Pullman Room, The Cosmopolitan Hotel, 2 Lower Briggate, Leeds, LS1 4AE from18:00 and are held on the third Tuesday of each month from September to May.
YORK Chairman Ian Kitching Secretary Gareth Dennis07951 [email protected] VENUES14 Rome House, York, YO31 7ST, 17:30 for 18:00 & Network Rail Meeting Rooms 0.1 & 0.2, George Stephenson House, 1 Toft Green, York, YO1 6JT at 17:30 for 18:00. Access the office from the Railway Memorial entrance side of York Council West Offices, or through the white gate opposite the York Railway Station main entrance.
Sections
4
SECTION ACTIVITIES
MAY 2017
2nd May TuesdayWESSEX SECTIONRose Tinted Spectacles and Track Maintenance Standards (Andy Jones, Network Rail)Eastleigh Railway Institute, 2 Romsey Road, Eastleigh, Southampton, SO50 9FE
3rd May WednesdayTHAMES VALLEY SECTIONThe Railway & Maritime History of East London (Ray Pocock, PWI Fellow, Thames Valley)Network Rail’s Davidson House Offices, Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading, RG1 3EU
4th May ThursdayMILTON KEYNES SECTIONThe Making of Rails (Daniel Pyke, Product Marketing Manager Rail, British Steel)Auditorium, The Quadrant, Network Rail, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1EN
4th May ThursdayEDINBURGH SECTIONDover Shakespeare Seawall Reinstatement Works (Alan Ross, DRAM Network Rail)Upstairs Function Room, The Scots Guards Club,2 Clifton Terrace, Opposite Haymarket Station, Edinburgh, EH12 5DR
4th May ThursdayYORK SECTIONRILA: Surveying at Speed (Trevor Burton, Fugro RailData)Network Rail Meeting Rooms 0.1 & 0.2, George Stephenson House, 1 Toft Green, York, YO1 6JT
8th May MondaySOUTH & WEST WALES SECTIONDemonstration and Presentation: Rail Steel and Thermit Welding (Alan Binstead, Thermit Welding)Cardiff Venue TBC
9th May – 11th MayRAILTEX - Come and visit us on stand Q03Visit http://www.railtex.co.uk/visit/ for full details and to register your attendance.The NEC, Birmingham, B40 1NT
11th May ThursdayBIRMINGHAM SECTIONFull Renewal Vs Maintenance Techniques (Craig Green & TME)2nd Flr, Network Rail, Baskerville House, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
11th May ThursdayCROYDON & BRIGHTON SECTIONQuattro Plant (Bob Browning, Quattro Plant)Mott MacDonald House, Sydenham Road, Croydon, CR0 2EE
11th May ThursdayNORTH WALES SECTIONEddy Current (Bob Hardwell, Network Rail)The Town Crier Inn, City Road, Chester, CH1 3AE
16th May TuesdayWEST YORKSHIRE SECTIONSwitch Protection using Friction Modifiers (Jay Benson, JB Rail)The Pullman Room, The Cosmopolitan Hotel, 2 Lower Briggate, Leeds LS1 4AE
17th May WednesdayGLASGOW SECTIONCowlairs Junction Track Modernisation for EGIP (Donnie Morris, Amey Sersa)WSP Offices, 7th Floor, 110 Queen Street, Glasgow, G1 3BX
18th May ThursdayMANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL SECTIONEden Brow (Paul Hodson, Network Rail)SQ1 – Network Rail Offices, Square One, 4 Travis Street, Manchester, M1 2NY
18th May ThursdayNOTTINGHAM & DERBY SECTIONBallastless Trackforms Designed for Crossrail Central Section (Russell Gee, Crossrail)Aston Court Hotel, opposite Derby station, Derby DE1 2SL
23rd May TuesdayWEST OF ENGLAND SECTIONTrack Design for High Speed (Niall Fagan, HS2)Room 3.9, Network Rail’s SN1 Offices, Station Road, Swindon, SN1 2DH
24th May WednesdayLONDON HALF DAY TECHNICAL SEMINARRails: On Our Mettle - Learn about all aspects of railmanagement and its importance to the track engineer. MEMBERS: Remember to login to the website when booking to take advantage of the member rates.London South Bank University, Keyworth Street, London, SE1 6NG
5
SECTION ACTIVITIES
JUNE & JULY 2017
1st June ThursdayYORK SECTIONTrack-Ex, The Power of Prediction (Matthew Keillor, Network Rail) Network Rail Meeting Rooms 0.1 & 0.2, George Stephenson House, 1 Toft Green, York, YO1 6JT
6th June TuesdayWESSEX SECTIONWaterloo & South West Capacity Upgrade 2017 (Stephen Kearney, Colas Rail)The Rose and Crown, Columbo Street, Waterloo, London, SE1 8DP
7th June WednesdayTHAMES VALLEY SECTIONFurther Slab Track Developments (Carl Garrud, Rhomberg Sersa (TBC)Network Rail’s Davidson House Offices, Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading, RG1 3EU
7th June WednesdayLONDON SECTIONWhat can the Railways learn from Formula 1? (Alice Rowlands, Simulator Test Engineer, McLaren)10th Floor, London Underground, 55 Broadway,London, SW1H 0BD
8th June ThursdayBIRMINGHAM SECTIONCompeting Priorities: Preserving Railway Heritage vs Running a Tourist Railway (Clive Hawkins, Gloucester & Warwickshire Railway)2nd Flr, Network Rail, Baskerville House, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
8th June ThursdayNORTH WALES SECTIONPresidential Visit & Track Delivery Update (Steve Featherstone, PWI President & Programme Director (Track) Network Rail)The Town Crier Inn, City Road, Chester, CH1 3AE
8th June ThursdayMILTON KEYNES SECTIONDrainage Systems - All or Nothing (Mona Sihota, Network Rail)Auditorium, The Quadrant, Network Rail, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1EN
12th June MondaySOUTH & WEST WALES SECTIONRailcare Vacuum System: Capabilities by Case Studies (Simon Twiner, Railcare Sweden Ltd)Network Rail Office, 5th Floor, 5 Callaghan Square, Cardiff, CF10 5BT
15th June ThursdayMANCHESTER & LIVERPOOL SECTIONStressing (Brian Whitney, Network Rail)SQ1 – Network Rail Offices, Square One, 4 Travis Street, Manchester, M1 2NY
17th June SaturdayANNUAL INTER SECTION QUIZWith teams taking part from Edinburgh, Manchester & Liverpool, Lancaster, Barrow & Carlisle, Darlington & North East and Glasgow SectionsCounty Hotel, Botchergate, Carlisle, CA1 1QP
27th June TuesdayWEST OF ENGLAND SECTIONDetails TBCRoom 3.9, Network Rail’s SN1 Offices, Station Road, Swindon, SN1 2DH
2nd July SundayMILTON KEYNES SECTION VISITMilton Keynes Section Visit to Sir William McAlpine’s Fawley Museum and Railway, Henley on ThamesSpaces will be filled on a first come first served basis, closing date for applications will be by the end of April and are to be sent to Kevin Thurlow –[email protected] Hill Museum, Fawley Green, Fawley,Henley-on-Thames, RG9 6JA
6th July ThursdayPWI GOLF DAY – Open to everyone!For full details please contact Tony DarrochE-mail: [email protected] tel: 07785 285776Mob: 01778 590247Lutterworth Golf Club, Rugby RoadLutterworth, LE17 4HN
6
SECTION ACTIVITIES
Thursday 6TH JULY 2017 12.00 - 19.30
The first tee times will be at 13:00
LUTTERWORTH GOLF CLUBRugby Road | Lutterworth | LE17 4HN
For more details please contact Tony [email protected]
07785 285776 | 01778 590247
Permanent Way Institution
GOLF DAYOPEN TO EVERYONE!
There will be two starts from the 1st and 11th tees to minimise the waiting time before the meal and presentation of prize. For the CEMEX Cup, unlike previous years, players may play with their team members if they wish. Please encourage your colleagues to enter.
• PWI members may play for the PWI Cup• Both PWI and non-PWI members may play for the CEMEX Cup in teams of 3 - the
winning team will be the one with the maximum aggregate score• Stableford format, full handicap allowance• Tee times from 1pm. Your tee time will be notified a week beforehand• Entry fee (to be collected on the day)• PWI members £5• Non PWI members £30• For non PWI members arrangements can be made to join the PWI on the day• Sandwiches and chips will be served from 12 noon.• A 2 course meal will be served at approximately 6.30 pm• Presentations will follow the meal
7
SECTION ACTIVITIES
A round up of recent activities in our Sections.Reports may be abbreviated for publication in the Journal. Full versions can be downloaded from our website:
www.thepwi.org/technical_hub/section_activities
BIRMINGHAM
9th February 2017Summer in the Saloon – Track and Track People Not Rye, Whisky and CowboysDavid Godley, Chief Track & Lineside Engineer, Network Rail
David joined us for the evening in February to take us through his thoughts on the future and direction of track engineering, inspection, and maintenance. This was combined with a light-hearted and entertaining quiz based on pictures of different locations taken across the country from the Inspection Saloon.Discussion centred around shared best practice, areas for improvement, focus on investment in new technologies, and the development of younger engineers.
Thursday 9th March 2017Section AGM & The Future of the UK’s Rail Industry and Track EngineeringDr. Brian Counter, Technical Director, PWI
The Birmingham AGM preceded the regular section meeting. Member numbers, attendance numbers for section meeting’s, and numbers of professionally qualified members have all increased over the past year and continue to show a positive trend. David Webb was unanimously elected into the role of Section Chairman and will take over duties from Paul King going forward.
Craig Green EngTech PWI was unanimously elected into the role of Section Deputy Chairman. Richard Quigley EngTech MPWI was unanimously re-elected into the role of Section Secretary. Rebecca Fasham MPWI joins the section committee.
Brian followed with his talk about the current situation of the railway industry, specifically highlighting overcrowding issues and the need to consider different approaches in managing this – ‘hours per mile, not miles per hour’. He then proceeded to give an update about the PWI and the importance of professional qualifications in the future or the railway industry. A run through of the different routes to membership closed out this month’s section meeting.
EDINBURGH SECTION
2nd Dec 2016Social Tour - Broughton Brewery
The Edinburgh section travelled to Broughton village, to visit the Broughton Brewery for the annual social tour.
Co-owner David McGowan advised the group that the brewery located near Biggar, in the Scottish Borders was founded in 1979, in a former sheep station. The brewery proved to pioneer Scottish microbrewery principles and provided an alternative to the mass produced products available at the time.
Using locally sourced water, the brewery built on their original core products such as Greenmantle. The range was able to be
extended, using the names of legendary borders characters such as old Jock. The success of the operation had a positive effect on the number of microbreweries and indeed the campaign for real ale.
Following a 1995 takeover, the range extended further with some innovative and bold products to complement the traditional range to date. The export market for Broughton brewery is now international, with their product being shipped as far as Australia and Japan.
Today the operation runs in a very efficient manner and the scale of the output was most impressive, from a relatively modest facility. Since the buy out in 2015, the current team continue to plan for the future, including proposals for a number of different infrastructure improvements to enable efficient delivery and continue future growth.
Over the 35 years, there has been a lot of change and the resulting award winning beers are testament to the hard work and dedication by the Broughton team.
A vote of thanks was given by section chairman Russell Kimber to David McGowan, for an excellent afternoon, which was warmly seconded by all present.
12th January 2017AGM & Quiz Night
The meeting commenced with the AGM and the following members were voted as officers of the Edinburgh section July 2017 - July 2018:
Chairman, Russell Kimber. Vice Chairman, Andrew Blakeley. Secretary, Robert Gardiner
2017 Section meetings and section structure was then discussed.
The evening then moved onto the annual quiz with 3 teams competing for the Syd Smith golden Pandrol trophy. Quiz master Russell Kimber provided five rounds of subjects, including the obligatory railway round, along with a good mix of general knowledge. After the final count, it was clear there was a two way tie break and due to the negligible point’s difference, the third team was offered an opportunity to also enter the tie break. The final question required the year that popular Scottish drink, Iron Bru was first distributed. Much to the surprise to the other two teams, the team consisting of Bob Gardiner, Andy Blakeley, Andrew Anderson and Alan Smith knew the exact year and proudly scooped the 2017 title.
2nd February 2017 The recovery works element of Lamington viaduct, post 31st December 2015Craig Robertson, Project Engineer, Network Rail
Following the resulting damage from storm Frank on New Year’s Eve 2015, a multidiscipline project team had to be quickly assembled to agree a recovery plan. This was not an easy task during the New Year holidays however a diving evaluation survey of the damage was organised, supplemented with an aerial drone, which was later utilised to monitor site conditions and progress.
BIRMINGHAM SECTION: Inspection saloon
8
SECTION ACTIVITIES
Following assessment, it was agreed blockage of both lines would be appropriate, allowing unrestricted safe access to the worksite. The assessment was split into 3 sections, stability of the piers and displacement of the bearings and capacity of the deck. From there a range of options were drawn up with SEPA approval and for the pier, it was agreed the existing pier should be stabilised with a doweled mass concrete plinth and micro piles. For the bearings, it was agreed the existing would not be suitable for reuse, due to the extent of displacement and tight timescales. Access to the original as built drawings proved to be very helpful in understanding the existing structure which had been partly reconstructed for West Coast Route Modernisation. This also assisted in proving the capability of the deck.
To stabilise the structure, plus provide protection and access for the works, a 300m2 rock causeway was constructed. This allowed the new pier base & walls to be completed, the deck to be jacked and the existing bearings to be broken out. During the works further storms (Gertrude & Henry) passed, causing the river to rise in excess of 1m in 24hours. These events resulted in further damage to both permanent and temporary infrastructure, thus slowing down the recovery works.
With an initial target opening date of the 1st of March 2017 conditions during February continued to be very challenging, with snow often being experienced. Line reopening however was achieved early on 22 Feb 2016, with follow up works, which could be safely delivered during normal operations, continuing to the viaduct and its surrounds. Significant amounts of other multidiscipline infrastructure works were also completed on the WCML during the 7 week line blockage to reduce the impact and volume of future track access requirements.
Craig finished his presentation with a detailed time-lapse video, which further demonstrated the full scale of the works to the audience.
A vote of thanks was given by section vice chairman Russell Kimber to Craig for a very rewarding presentation, which was warmly seconded by all of those present.
GLASGOW SECTION
16th November 2016Track Quality Management and Inherent Standard DeviationConstantin Ciobanu, Principal Engineer, WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff
Tom Wilson welcomed members and introduced our speaker for the evening in Swindon. To set the scene of his presentation Constantin gave us a quick update on how we used to collect track data. In the early days this was done by manual collection with many people on site to collect the data, In the 1920s this was supplemented by the Hallade information system. This was a more up to date system, which made use of accelerometers. Modern day data is now collected by computer controlled systems, such as the New Measurement train. This visits the most popular Inter City lines on a two weekly basis. The information collected gives instant results and these are fed back to the local staff at the end of a train run. Other similar equipment is mounted on a DMU or an On Track machine, which collects similar data, but on a not so regular basis.
The New Measurement Train is also used as a test train for other development systems, like plain line pattern recognition, structure gauging and overhead lines testing.
Constantin gave us an update on how the various track data is now collected. Using 35m, 70m and 200m distances, depending on the track speed. The collected data is instantly compared to the standards in use by Network Rail for both plain line and switches and crossings. Problem areas are identified by spraying paint on the area for follow up by staff
on site. Russell Kimber gave a Vote of Thanks to Constantin
14th December 2016Track Delivery UpdateSteve Featherstone, IP Director, Track Delivery Unit, Network Rail
To set the scene of his presentation Steve advised that when he came to his post, he had a 16-point plan for the unit, as well as improving safety and increasing plant availability. Many staff had been working in the railway environment for generations. There was a master plan of site audits. Attention was given to staff fatigue, speeding to or from sites, staff not wearing seat belts in company vehicles, not using hands free kits in vehicles and a reluctance to wear the supplied safety kit. During 2015/16 these points were tackled and a sword of honour was awarded for safety improvements.
Road/rail plant on sites was another area of concern and a plan was prepared to replace some equipment with more expensive but reliable units. The average age of equipment supplied is now no more than 2 years old.Most of the High Output on track equipment owned by Network Rail is fairly new, so there was no great problem with any of it. New contracts have also been awarded in the UK for plain line and S&C track renewals. These are 10 year contracts to allow the contractor to get a return on capital for equipment used against the contract. Track renewal cranes are making a comeback on sites. Flexible train arrival points on site are proving to be a good timesaver. These are just a few of the initiatives that have been introduced.
From a High Output plant point of view these ballast cleaning and renewals trains are now more commonly working with trains on the adjacent track on a caution. With passenger numbers rising and predicted to rise further, the times on sites at weekends are being adjusted to allow more trains to run.Steve discussed flexible train arrival points, with remotely activated track circuit operating devices. Although the follow up tampers continue to use signal protection schemes. The renewals trains can only handle concrete sleepers. They cannot handle wooden or steel sleepers. Sites which involve these types of sleepers are still renewed by conventional methods using twin or single jib track renewals cranes. John Oates gave a Vote of Thanks to Steve.
18th January 2017Optimising maintenance and renewals planning through better use of track dataSimon Middleton, AECOM
Simon set the scene of his presentation by outlining where AECOM fits in the current UK Railway scene. Originally being part of BR, then Scott Wilson Railways and URS, AECOM employs around 100,000 based around the world. In the UK the rail division is mostly carrying out work for Network Rail or other contractors within the UK carrying out Network Rail schemes. Although they have done work recently for London Underground and the Railway Safety and Standards Board. There is a wealth of information now produced mostly for Network Rail. If a contractor is involved in
EDINBURGH SECTION: 2017 Winning team - Bob Gardiner, Andy Blakeley, Andrew Anderson and Alan Smith.
9
SECTION ACTIVITIES
one of their contracts they have access to the information. The data must however be viewed with an experienced eye to make best use of it.
Using the data a vast amount of planning can be produced, for planning interventions to track and OHL. Various scenarios can be created and a great deal of time saved for the contractor.
Jim Watson VP for Scotland gave a Vote of Thanks to Simon
28th February 2017Railway Engineers Forum Scotland
Russell Kimber opened the 2016 REF Scotland Developing Professionals Presentation competition and welcomed our Judges for the event. Jim Summers, from IRO, Eileen Russel from IMechE and Irfan Ahmed from Network Rail, who was also a contestant in the 2015 event. Russell introduced our Master of Ceremonies for the evening Richard East, the IMechE Railway Division Chairman. Richard welcomed all our guests for the evening from the various Institutions which make up REF Scotland and went on to introduce our four Developing Professionals, who were giving their short presentations. A draw had previously been made and our first presentation was from Ron Dempster, from Network Rail in Glasgow, a Project Engineer. Ron had previously worked in Scotland East where his Presentation on Holding Repairs to Baberton Road underbridge was the theme. The structure at Baberton Road is an underbridge, installed in the 1960’s by Bone, Connell and Baxter, to replace an older structure. The bridge carries the up and down lines from Edinburgh Waverley to the West Coast Main Line at Carstairs. The railway here is electrified and has a RA10 classification. Bridge 280/129 is one of twenty shear connector structures currently owned by Network Rail in Scotland. These are structures which share a common design, manufactured in the 1960’s. The construction allows the main girder, to be placed independently from its deck, which benefit from making use of a smaller crane during the construction. The deck could be split into sections weighing no more than the single main girder. The deck is secured to the main girder by a bolt at this point. This bolt is not designed to transfer the dead or live load from the deck to the main girders, the bolt is there to maintain the position of the deck on the shear connector pad. Baberton Road has a history of broken shear connector bolts. Failure was becoming more frequent, with a number of unplanned visits to effect repairs. The main task was to prolong the life of the structure and have confidence that the new bolts would remain securely in place. The works were programmed and were done as a joint venture with structure examiners as well as additional examinations from another contractor. The Lanarkshire Welding Company, who manufactures structure, also played a part. This reduces costs of the work and inconvenience to the road users. The repairs carried out have been effective in stopping the failure of the shear connector
bolts. They are cost effective and have extended the structure life allowing the renewal date of the bridge to be extended. Our next presentation was from Spenser Gray, from SNC Lavalin in Derby. Spenser’s presentation was on Carbon capture and storage. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is primarily of interest to the power generator industry, however it may also prove to have a role in the rail industry. Issues associated with the various technologies include material handling, solvent degradation, regeneration energy, volumetric storage capacity, regeneration time and operating parameters. Carbon can either be removed from the fuel prior to its combustion or from the combustion products. The suitability of the process will depend on the application in question. Pre-combustion methods of carbon capture generate Hydrogen which can either be used in an internal combustion engine or to run a fuel cell. Electric or Diesel Electric traction configurations would be the simplest to either convert or base a new vehicle design on as the pantograph, or generator and fuel tank can be removed to free up space for the fuel cell and hydrogen storage tanks, however it may still be necessary to move existing equipment to accommodate the fuel tanks in an optimal location. In the case of CCS, methane is converted to hydrogen using a process referred to as “steam gas reformation” which utilises two concurrent reversible reactions. The two gases can be separated using a variety of techniques, 2 of which were discussed in the next section of this report. Without the addition of further infrastructure to accommodate the storage of hydrogen at depots or stations this cannot be implemented. Post combustion methods are more readily applied to existing vehicles as they are typically placed near the end of the engine’s exhaust stage and as such, should not require significant modification to the vehicle’s power train. Unfortunately due to space constraints on diesel vehicles any additional equipment fitted must be of limited size.
The Class 220 train, with 200 seats or the 221 train with 250 seats are used extensively on Britain’s Railways. They are Diesel Electric Multiple Units and cover some of the longest continuous rail route between Aberdeen and Penzance, a distance of approximately 1150 km. They are also used on other similar routes, with similar daily work cycles. Given the information in this study it appears that Adsorption based CCS may find an application within the railway industry with ESA being used to facilitate regeneration, however without necessitating significant changes to vehicles it would require operational changes to be implemented such as longer stops at stations to enable regeneration of the capture materials. Calum Oates was our next presenter. Calum’s presentation was on Plant for Electrification. Calum is the Mechanisation Development Manager with Babcock Rail in Hamilton. As part of their on-going contracts, Babcock has been working with the ABC Consortium, who has the Overhead Electrification contract for EGIP, the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Project. The UK government is currently
investing in electrification of the rail network with 850 route miles currently planned for electrification and £38 billion of investment. The increased investment in electrification means new plant has been developed to support the electrification projects.
Babcock, in conjunction with their plant joint venture partner Swietelsky, have been proactive in this through the modification of their Kirow 250 to allow it to be used for pile in overhead mast bases during installations. In addition to piling works, the Kirow cranes have also been used to support electrification works through mast, portal and boom installations. A mast clamp has been developed as part of this and is currently waiting to receive Network Rail Product Acceptance.
In addition to their own plant, Babcock have been involved through the ABC consortium (Alstom, Babcock & Costain), in assisting Alstom to introduce its Wiring Train from Italy into the UK. This unit has previously been used mainly in Italy, but needed to be overhauled and made to fit the UK loading gauge, before use on the EGIP Project.
SB Rail (Swietelsky Babcock Rail) has also integrated its unique robotic crane arm on one of its Kirow 250 cranes with a side-insertion piling unit forming part of its Electrification Piling Train.
Calum’s involvement in this system began in 2012 when the system was ready to be introduced and used on its first project which was Paisley Canal Electrification (PaCE). The first task he was assigned was to assist in the creation of an operation and maintenance manual for the system. This required him to collate and review information provided from the various equipment suppliers that the system is comprised of, including the crane itself, the side-clamp piling head, top-mounted piling head and the external hydraulic powerpack used to power the piling attachments. Following the successful use of the system throughout PaCE the piling system has been used on a number of projects including EGIP, Walsall to Rugeley in the West Midlands and Mid Calder Junction Remodelling where it was used under existing OHLE to install new piled foundations as part of the remodelling works. Once the piling system was established and with EGIP committed to using the system along with interest from other electrification projects it was decided to transfer the system from the temporary arrangements on a Salmon wagon to a permanent solution on purpose built container flats mounted on KFA wagons. These required similar bending moment calculations carried out to confirm the deflection was within the allowable limits of ISO 1496-5:1991 Specification and testing of platform and platform-based containers. Babcock and its joint venture partners have been proactive in developing and assisting in the introduction of new plant to capitalise on the focus on electrification in the rail industry within the UK. This work has been crucial to increasing efficiencies in electrification projects, minimising the number of machines required on site which in turn has reduced the risk of incidents between personnel and machines.
10
SECTION ACTIVITIES
The final presentation of the event was from Matthew Pygott; Matthew is an Environmental Co-ordinator with Carlillion. His presentation was Does carbon really matter? Today this question is a hot topic within the rail industry and sustainability forums. The infrastructure sector accounts for more than 50% of the UK’s CO2 emissions and if we don’t adapt measure and optimise low carbon best practice, the UK will not meet its commitment of an 80% reduction by 2050. Prior to focusing on carbon within Carillion, Matthew had a basic understanding of the carbon cycle through his degree course at the University of York. Since taking up his post with Carillion from University 18 months ago his work has achieved an increased awareness of carbon across
projects through presentations and workshops, integrated carbon within design, shaped the Rail Carbon Tool for future users and provided feedback to our client Network Rail who invested in the production of bite sized training modules, which are now available online via the RSSB website. His work has led to him being seen as the Carillion Rail Carbon Champion.
Although railway transportation and operation is advertised as a low carbon alternative to other modes of transport, the carbon emissions from constructing and maintaining a rail infrastructure are greater than those of other transportation systems. This is due to the multipart nature of railway systems that require
a variety of high carbon intensive materials (e.g. concrete). The Rail infrastructure carbon footprint is broken down into two areas; operational (non-traction and traction carbon) and infrastructure (embodied carbon - carbon released in a materials whole lifecycle). Associated embodied carbon emissions within infrastructure are potentially responsible for over 20% of the total infrastructure footprint (Kaewunruen et al 2015). Even though embodied emissions are not the largest contributor to the total footprint, it is the region where contractors such as Carillion can measure and optimise reductions. The Rail Safety and Standard Boards (RSSB) launched the Rail Carbon Tool (RCT) in 2015 with the aim that it becomes the primary tool used in the rail infrastructure sector. This free, web based tool with the aim of assessing emission levels within rail infrastructure projects. The tool’s aim is primarily to optimise infrastructure design; to design-out high embedded carbon materials and replace these with low embedded carbon materials. Each presentation had a 5 minutes question slot after it. The judges then retired to consider their selection of prize winners. In first place was Calum Oates, with his presentation on Overhead Line Plant. Calum chose his prize as a visit to the Forth Rail Bridge for two. Second place was Matthew Pygott with his presentation, “Does Carbon really matter?” Matthew chose his prize as a visit to the Scot-Rail Train Simulator in Glasgow, with hands on experience. In third place was Ron Dempster with his presentation on Baberton Road Bridge. Ron’s prize was two 1st Class sleeper tickets to London, with Caledonian Sleepers. Our grateful thanks go to our Sponsors for donating the prizes for the competition, these being Caledonian Sleepers, Network Rail and Abellio Scot-Rail Railways. Nobody goes home empty handed and Spenser Gray was invited to be part of the judging team at the 2017 competition in November. Calum Oates receives his prize from Richard East for his presentation. All photographs courtesy of Russell Kimber.
LANCASTER, BARROW & CARLISLE SECTION
8th November 2016 Glasgow Queen Street Tunnel Works and Remodelling David Trainer, Senior Programme Manager, Track Projects North, Babcock International The Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project (EGIP) consists of the electrification of the line between Edinburgh (from its junction with the Bathgate line at Newbridge) and Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High, involving the remodelling of the layout of the station throat at Queen Street with platform extensions and the extension of platforms at intermediate stations. The project works were carried out in the form of an alliance agreement between Network Rail and several parties, including Morgan Sindall as principal contractor, Babcock International and Story Rail. In order to electrify the 918 metre long Queen Street Tunnel it was necessary to renew the life-expired existing concrete slab track, which
GLASGOW SECTION: Calum Oates receives his prize from Richard East for his presentation.
GLASGOW SECTION: Matthew Pygott receives his prize of a visit to the Scot-Rail Train Simulator from Richard East.
11
SECTION ACTIVITIES
had been installed forty years ago and was now suffering the effects of water infiltration and unable to support the revised line speed of 50 mph (from 20 mph) after electrification. This was to be undertaken using the ÖBB-PORR process [joint venture between Porr AG and Austrian Federal Railways] as the first case of slab with slab track renewal in the UK, although the track renewal work in Winchburgh Tunnel on the route in 2015 had used the process in renewing ballasted with slab track. A total blockade of Queen Street high level station was necessary in order to carry out the works, which took place over a twenty week period between 20th March and 8th August 2016. During the first three weeks of this period, track renewal work north of the tunnel at Cowlairs was undertaken by Amey, which included the replacement or renovation of nine point ends. In the following seventeen weeks tunnel and station works took place simultaneously. During this period passenger services were diverted either to Glasgow Central high level or Queen Street low level stations; the latter involving a one-way anticlockwise diversion route from Cowlairs via a new crossover installed at Anniesland station (identified as part of the overall project works), rejoining the Edinburgh line at Cowlairs via Springburn.
The first stage of slab track replacement was the breaking out of 10.000 tonnes of existing slab concrete by Story Rail using a horizontal and vertical cross cutting technique, starting at the station portal on the up main line (towards Edinburgh) and loading into trains on the parallel track. In order to check the method of construction a trial 23m length of slab was broken out (and replaced with temporary ballast) in a 33 hour possession before the blockade. Single track access via the tunnel to Queen Street had to be maintained at all times to enable supply trains to operate both to the tunnel and the permanent way layout remodelling works. A corresponding procedure was adopted for the down main line, again working up the 1 in 42 gradient
of the tunnel. New concrete was supplied via two tunnel ventilation shafts and laid on the bedrock in parallel with the breaking out process. It was necessary to anchor the concrete to the bedrock with 1500 steel dowels for each track in order to prevent the separation of the two by lifting. Drainage was also installed between the two slabs. The second stage of the works, for which Babcock was responsible, was the installation of reinforced concrete PORR panels 5.2 metres in length on the up and down tracks respectively, which was undertaken by specialist sub-contractor Rhomberg Sersa. After the concrete slabs were installed, new rails were placed in position until correctly aligned, following which self-curing concrete was poured to cement the whole structure. There were, however, two crossovers located 95m north of the station portal which were replaced using the Sonneville LVT system. At the north end of the tunnel, sections of slab track merged with ballasted track through the employment of two ‘V-TRAS’ units, an integral part of the PORR process.
The station track layout remodelling by Babcock took place in parallel with the tunnel works, as part of which seven timber switch and crossings were installed. At the same time platform reconstruction took place, platforms 3 and 4 being extended to seven coaches in length in order to be able to accommodate the Class 785 electric multiple unit trains which are to operate the electrified services in reduced formation from December 2017 (until restored to eight coaches in 2018 in parallel with further platform extension during station rebuilding). Platform 7 was also extended. The final works involved the fixing of a continuous conductor bar to the tunnel roof by Costain and the resignalling of the station layout, which involved the erection of a new gantry. The presentation was followed by questions and discussion, and the meeting closed with John Parker giving a vote of thanks to the speaker.
13th December 2016The Work of the Railway Heritage Trust Andy Savage – Railway Heritage Trust Chairman John Parker introduced Andy Savage, Executive Director of the Railway Heritage Trust, who proceeded to give a presentation on the Trust’s work. This involves assisting the operational railway companies in the preservation of listed buildings and structures which are owned either by Network Rail or the Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate and in the transfer of non-operational premises and structures to outside bodies willing to undertake their preservation. Both large and small projects are eligible, which may relate either to operational or non-operational assets. Since its foundation in 1985 the Trust has awarded some 1500 grants worth £48 million. The April issue of the PWI Journal contains a detailed account of this presentation, including a gazetteer of colour photographs of locations on the network which have benefitted from the Trust’s support (see pages 69 to 71 under Thames Valley section). The presentation was followed by questions and discussion, after which John Parker gave a vote of thanks to the speaker.
10th January 2017Gospel Oak to Barking Line Upgrading Kirk Taylor, Managing Director, Stobart Rail The Beeching Report recommended the withdrawal of all services on the fourteen mile route between Gospel Oak and Barking and some former services on the line have indeed been withdrawn, such as local services between St. Pancras and Barking and the St. Pancras to Tilbury boat trains. However there has been a growth in service levels in recent years and the line now supports a frequent passenger service of stopping trains operated by two-coach Class 172 diesel multiple units and forms a significant corridor for freight traffic. Following the decision to electrify the route an alliance which included Stobart Rail, Murphy and Amey was successful in its bid to undertake the work. The decision to electrify the route meant that a method of providing clearances for overhead line equipment had to be determined and track lowering was chosen as the preferred method (the reconstruction of four bridges also formed part of the works). In order to carry out work most effectively it was determined that a two-stage line blockade would be necessary; stage one (involving closure of the line between South Tottenham and Barking) taking place between June and September 2016 and stage two (involving closure throughout between Gospel Oak and Barking) taking place between September 2016 and February 2017.
Stobart Rail’s role within the alliance was the renewal of track, while Murphy was responsible for civil engineering on track and bridges. Track lowering at four separate sites was necessary, which involved excavating the existing permanent way on the up line [towards Gospel Oak] while leaving the down line in situ to allow access for engineering trains, followed by relaying and similar lowering of the down line under 24 hour working conditions. Civil works such as the underpinning of retaining walls were also undertaken. Track lowering at the first site, a 200m length between Upper Holloway and Crouch Hill, was completed
GLASGOW SECTION: Ron Demster receives his prize of two 1st Class sleeper tickets to London from Richard East.
12
SECTION ACTIVITIES
in three consecutive weekend (54 hour) possessions during May 2016 before the start of stage one. The main construction effort during the blockade was on the 1,750m site between Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow Queens Road, where seventeen overbridges or other structures crossed the line, and construction took place throughout stages one and two. Here it was determined that concrete slab track would need to be installed on two 250m sections, where there were tight clearances with structures under the line. Work at the remaining two sites, a 320m length between Crouch Hill and Haringey Green Lanes (including the 90m Crouch Hill Tunnel) and a 160m length between Gospel Oak and Upper Holloway, was completed during stage two. Slab track was also installed in Crouch Hill Tunnel due to tight clearances.
Stobart Rail had undertaken slab track renewal previously on other line upgrades. These included a length of 1,100 metres between Hampstead Heath and Finchley Road & Frognal, which was installed during an eleven week blockade in 2008 using the RHEDA 2000 system in association with BAM and a length involving track lowering under eleven structures between Walsall and Rugeley in 2015 as part of the electrification of the line. However this project was the first occasion on which it had been involved in construction using the ÖBB-PORR process [joint venture between Porr AG and Austrian Federal Railways]. In this method of construction precast concrete Porr slabs were placed on a concrete base layer and the track positioned precisely, followed by the pouring of self-curing concrete to fix the final assembly. As part of the PORR process each single track at the end of a slab track section merged with adjacent ballasted track by means of a ‘V-TRAS’ unit. The installation was undertaken by the specialist sub-contractor Rhomberg Sersa. The lower track level at Walthamstow Queens Road meant that the existing station platforms had to be demolished and rebuilt, and they were also extended in order to accommodate the four-coach electric multiple units which were to operate the electrified service [platforms were also lengthened at Haringey Green Lanes, South Tottenham and Gospel Oak]. The design of the overhead line equipment was undertaken by Amey as part of a joint venture, and overhead masts were installed wider from the running edge than the standard distance in order to reduce signal sighting difficulties, resulting in the need to reposition two signals only. Six miles of new cable trough was installed and every signal remote from existing 25kV AC lines earthed.
At the end of the presentation there was a period of questions and discussion, and the evening ended with the Chairman inviting Philip Kirkland, PWI Vice President for England, to give a vote of thanks to the speaker. LONDON SECTION
8th June 2016The Challenges of Rail –Reprofiling on London Underground Jennifer McKinney
At the outset, Jennifer stressed that the objective of her presentation was to demonstrate how changes in delivery have
enabled significant gains to be made in rail re-profiling on London Underground and that we were now grinding in sections where delivery of grinding was deemed not possible previously. The engineering benefits of grinding have been discussed on a number of occasions previously at London Section meetings.
The first change trialled was to engage in linear grinding and set a single zone of rail to be ground on each pass. On successive passes target mid gauge, deep gauge, field face and head of rail also known as maintenance pass. This approach reduced the potential for build-up of gases within the tunnel and considerably reduced the need for dedicated access on a station to station basis over a long period which has hindered other work parties in the past.
The rail grinding team under Jennifer’s management was keen also to develop a culture of continuous improvement and to develop experience and embed lessons learnt. A direct labour team was recruited to grow technical expertise and develop a strong team spirit to tackle multi –disciplinary challenges.The team targeted signals process improvements, access, fire risk mitigation, gas monitoring and also new plant to enable productivity gains to be made. Examples of signal process improvements were trials to demonstrate that linear grinding on many passes does not impact on trainstops and also the colour protecting of active insulated rail joints on some lines enables greater productivity. To ensure gains in access, some sidings in the central sections of London were used for berthing of the train and resource such as water was carried to the train rather than reroute train to depots usually at Line extremities. Also, engaging with Central Control enabled advantageous route setting and clearing of axle counters quickly as linear grinding techniques were understood more readily by stakeholders. The new plant that was specified for usage in London takes into consideration our gauging needs; however additional capacity for fire suppression systems and pressure washers (dampening wooden sleepers) and water storage were included in new build. The opportunity to build and modify plant meant that cleaner engines could be used reducing diesel emissions and also investment in monitors has enabled Jennifer’s team to build a comprehensive map of where high and low concentrations of fumes need to be managed.
To date sections such as Charing Cross branch have been ground using these new techniques and this has also increased output to 7km on a weeknight and 10km on a Saturday night. The vote of thanks was given by Fiona Thomson who jested that Baileys Comet needs to be seen more regularly than Haleys Comet in some lines.
7th November 2016 Digital Gauging and Clearances in 21st CenturyProf David Johnson, DGauge
The presentation started with a brief resume on the speaker’s involvement with gauging and clearances over the course of his career. Up to 25 years ago, the gauging of structures was undertaken using pole and tapes, draughting
plots and assessing if sufficient clearance existed prior to granting approval for various types of rolling stock to run. Advances in measurement techniques led to the adoption of lasers and in parallel MS-DOS was adopted as an operating package. The age of kinematic envelopes was born. Developments in processing power heralded the introduction of Hyper Route Gauging Software, which accelerated the volume of profiles that could be considered and processed and the science of dynamic gauging was born. Since 2008 the development of PHx Gauging Software and Laserflex SGT combined to usher in the era of digital gauging.
The current challenge in this aspect of track engineering is that the emphasis is on a single number called clearance. We spend money to achieve this number and do not consider risk or probability. From time to time we use incorrect stepping distances and this also prevents some trains from running. The final aspect related to gauging is also spatial checking for the fitting of electrification equipment to boost train performance.
To address these challenges, we need to appreciate that gauging data volumes have increased dramatically a typical vehicle profile in 1990 constituted 20 points, nowadays can be up to 80,000 points. The benefits of improved measured capability and techniques have resulted in greater resolution more complex calculations and uncertainty analytics can be undertaken. The critical cases can be identified, possible trundle speed, etc. and mitigations considered for these. Continuing with analogue profiles would be slow, requiring high bandwidths; inflexible as high levels of intervention are required when undertaking analysis and developing digital solutions is a necessity so that processing is quicker and cleaner. The key to digital gauging is that each point has a unique address, x,y,z and interface algorithms checking relationship between train to structure can be undertaken. Uncertainty algorithms (how much each point can vary) and dynamic transforms (tilt, active suspensions) can be quantified and assessed.
Currently digital gauging is at the forefront in reducing IEP conflicts, strategic freight network engineering, LU platform gaps, Thameslink electrification and platform gaps, new train design and acceptance, enabling rolling stock cascade (D Stock refurbished and introduced in North West and GWML electrification.What’s next? Developing high integrity databases for vehicle and infrastructure, no data limits, use of the cloud and internet to access and process data.
The session ended with a session of questions and answers and a vote of thanks was given by Paul Ebbutt Vice President of Southern Area PWI on behalf of the chair.
11 January 2017Concrete Sleeper History and InnovationsAndy Carey and Paul Crowther, Cemex Andy and Paul referred to the aggressive environment in which sleepers have to function, compared to other precast concrete products. Reinforced concrete (RC) monoblock sleepers trialled in the 1910s and 1920s proved unsatisfactory, failing within days. Thoughts turned to prestressed concrete
13
SECTION ACTIVITIES
(PC): in 1937 the Prestressed Concrete Co was established. Here the story took an interesting turn: the expert needed to steer it was a German Jew, Karl Mautner, who had been interned in Germany, but in 1938 MI6 secured his release. He joined the PC Co and developed a PC sleeper in 1941. The Dow-Mac company was set up the following year to produce PC sleepers in a long-line facility: these were far superior to the previous RC designs. A second supplier, Costain, was set up later.
A stimulus to concrete sleeper production was the shortage of timber during the Second World War. A British Standard for concrete sleepers, BS 986:1945 defined strength categories. The first PC type to be used in any quantity in the UK was the E1, for bullhead rail.
Product improvements followed. Indented stressing wire, affording improved bond, came in 1951. The first shallow-depth sleeper, EF21, came in 1962. In 1970 the 22 no. 5mm wires were replaced by 6 no. 9.3mm strands.
In 1985 Dow-Mac and Costain merged. At British Rail’s encouragement a second supplier, RMC, entered the market (later becoming Cemex).and a new factory was built at Washwood Heath, opening in 1989.The major developments since then have been the introduction of Pandrol Fastclip (FC) rail fastenings on Network Rail sleepers in 1993, dual-rail (56E1 and 60E1/2) sleepers in 1999 (these were for 30t axles and started the G and EG ranges, the E now signifying shallow-depth), the introduction by Cemex of Statistical Process Control to replace go/no-go gauges, cable-management (EG53) sleepers in 2009, introduction of Pandrol Fastclip FE rail fastenings on London Underground sleepers in 2011, and under-sleeper pads (USP) for all LU sleepers in 2014. USPs can be stiff for increased ballast life (by increasing the contact area) or soft for noise and vibration mitigation, and are attached to the wet concrete during sleeper production. Recently, LU, Cemex and Delkor have jointly developed check-rail sleepers and bearers.
For the future, a life of at least 70 years is seen as achievable for PC sleepers. The risk of alkali silica reaction can be reduced by partial replacement of cement with fly ash, though the reduction in coal-fired power stations means that this material is in short supply. The speakers made the point that future development in PC sleeper technology will depend very much on customers saying what they want. A vote of thanks was given by Sami Syed, LU Track renewals Engineer.
MILTON KEYNES SECTION
16th December 2016Cyclic TopIan Dean, Network Rail
Through the use of videos produced for training and information purposes and his presentation Ian explained what cyclic top was and how over the years BR and its successors have come to understand its causes. Past reports on derailments had shown that cyclic top possibly contributed to some of them, but was it the main cause? With more information they are now being actively looked for. The unloaded state of the derailed wagons has
become more prevalent and speed is a factor, but short wheelbase two axle wagons are not the only type involved. Ian then talked about the measurement of cyclic top faults and how the information was displayed and what changes there had been in the standards for correction. He then outlined the overall understanding of CT prior to the Gloucester incident where last wagon was derailed due CT. This was that CT promotes the undesirable condition of mechanical resonance, can be measured utilising 35m Top with an associated narrow band filtering & algorithm, associated but not limited to specific short wheel based, 2 axled UIC Friction Suspension freight wagons in the tare condition.
Intervention is effective from a safety perspective but remains viable to be relaxed for operational performance considerations. The causes of the Gloucester derailment highlighted a number of issues, the fault had been identified but the short and medium term rectification measures were ineffective, no manual way of assessing if there was any CT still left after correction works, no ESR imposed to reduce the speed over the site. This has meant that NR has changed working practices and standards and now a speed restriction must be imposed based on the severity of the fault, reassessing the timescales for repairs and the methods for delivering them with particular reference preventing a quick repair by just doing enough work to brake the cyclic nature of the fault. This was illustrated by extracts of the changes which have been made to the standards and Track Work Information Sheets. There was a good range of questions asked and the vote of thanks was proposed by Peter Halliwell.
2nd February 2017Intelligent InfrastuctureGeorge Walker, Network Rail
George covered the history within NR of the introduction of Remote Condition Monitoring and where it currently is with more than 55k asset types being monitored, which include points, track circuits, rail temperature monitors. He outlined the principles behind the introduction of RCM, what was under development at the moment, the challenges, the design ethos, are measuring the thing and what the future may hold. There were a number of questions asked at the end of the presentation and the vote of thanks was given be David Godley.
NORTH WALES SECTION
8th September 2016Wales Route Asset Management of Coastal StructuresKevin Giles, Senior Asset Engineer, Network Rail
Kevin began by describing the Coastal, Estuarial and River Defence (CERDs) assets managed by Wales Route: Covering 34 miles of coast line, they have the largest population of assets within Network Rail. Traditionally these require annual inspections which drive maintenance work, along with reactive works following flood damage. In 2011 Wales’ Route inherited major coastal assets from LNW prior to their devolution; this permitted a new approach to CERD management, an aspiration
of Kevin’s since 2001, to be taken. This change was reinforced by the ORR in 2013.
Kevin continued by describing several significant storm events that have occurred since devolution and photographs went someway to demonstrating the damage caused. Sea level rise, prolonged wet weather as well as a lack of coastal defences contributed to the storm damage.
Kevin explained ‘Levels of Service’; the key outputs Network Rail intends to deliver to its customers. The levels of service, or asset management objectives, for the CERD assets being: Capability, Safety and Availability. Although the traditional process provides assurance on the condition of CERDs to inform a level of intervention it is not deemed sufficient to fully achieve all three objectives.
The new approach, the Coastal Estuarial Asset Management Plan (CEAMP), is being trialled on the North Wales Coast in conjunction with work being undertaken by Network Rail Delivery and JBA Consulting. The CEAMP methodology is one of risk management, with the key steps being to: Identify, Analyse, Evaluate and Manage the risks. A four staged approach has been devised to apply this. Kevin went on to explain the methodology in detail and outline where the pilot is currently and the next steps in the process.
Finally Kevin spoke of the level of resilience required; this began a lively debate with the audience as to the responsibilities of Network Rails assets in protecting local communities. There were many years of experience in the room in managing these assets which proved to create a lively discussion before Alastair Roberts gave well-deserved thanks.
14th October 2016Five Decades of Derailment InvestigationMike McLoughlin
Mike began by giving a quick history of his railway career - he started with BR in 1954, based at Derby. In 1964 he began working in the research division, during which time he became involved in derailment investigation. Mike then went on to describe incidents from each decade of his career.
During the 1960s a modernisation programme commenced; this included mechanised maintenance and a shift in traction power from steam to diesel and electrification. This led to more derailments as the new processes and technologies were not always compatible with previous systems.
In 1964 Mike joined Derby research based at Kelvin House. The work involved carrying out independent investigations covering all disciplines. A methodology and reporting system was developed, focusing on key areas such as: identifying the point of derailment; recording and interpreting derailment marks; identifying the first vehicle to derail; deciding whether it contributed to the incident; determining the sequence of events. He presented some photos of derailment sites to illustrate how difficult this can be.
The first derailment Mike attended was in 1968 at Nuneaton Abbey Street Station. Couplings had separated causing some wagons to
14
SECTION ACTIVITIES
separate from the train. The train later slowed and the wagons caught up, piling into the rear of it. The derailed train stopped just short of the signal box and could have easily destroyed it.
Mike then described some derailments that occurred in subsequent decades, such as the incident in 1971 at Tattenhall Junction. This was due to a track buckle which initiated when rail creep had led to tight joints; the Section Manager was aware of the problem but hadn’t yet carried out the adjustment works. The buckle was triggered following the packing of joints, where the ballast hadn’t yet had time to consolidate. Sadly two children were killed.
In 1984 there was a derailment at Morpeth Curve where a loco tipped over. The derailed train collided with a bungalow and caused the whole building to rotate.
As well as British derailments, Mike has been involved in the investigation of a number of incidents overseas. He described some of these and also highlighted the differences between maintenance practices in Britain and abroad. For example, in 1985 a derailment occurred in Bangladesh when wagons rated for 33 tonnes had been overpainted to show their capacity as 37 tonnes. Subsequent testing showed that the train would be borderline safe operating at the correct capacity but was bound to derail when loaded to 37 tonnes.
Mike rounded up his talk by explaining some of the other project he is involved in, such as training Network Rail’s derailment team and presenting seminars and courses at a military engineering university in Rio Di Janeiro. He ended by giving some personal thoughts on the current investigation of derailments in the UK.
14th October 2016Five Decades of Derailment InvestigationMike McLoughlin
Mike began by giving a quick history of his railway career - he started with BR in 1954, based at Derby. In 1964 he began working in the research division, during which time he became involved in derailment investigation. Mike then went on to describe incidents from each decade of his career.
During the 1960s a modernisation programme commenced; this included mechanised maintenance and a shift in traction power from steam to diesel and electrification. This led to more derailments as the new processes and technologies were not always compatible with previous systems.
In 1964 Mike joined Derby research based at Kelvin House. The work involved carrying out independent investigations covering all disciplines. A methodology and reporting system was developed, focusing on key areas such as: identifying the point of derailment; recording and interpreting derailment marks; identifying the first vehicle to derail; deciding whether it contributed to the incident; determining the sequence of events. He presented some photos of derailment sites to illustrate how difficult this can be.
The first derailment Mike attended was in 1968 at Nuneaton Abbey Street Station. Couplings had separated causing some wagons to
separate from the train. The train later slowed and the wagons caught up, piling into the rear of it. The derailed train stopped just short of the signal box and could have easily destroyed it.
Mike then described some derailments that occurred in subsequent decades, such as the incident in 1971 at Tattenhall Junction. This was due to a track buckle which initiated when rail creep had led to tight joints; the Section Manager was aware of the problem but hadn’t yet carried out the adjustment works. The buckle was triggered following the packing of joints, where the ballast hadn’t yet had time to consolidate. Sadly two children were killed.
In 1984 there was a derailment at Morpeth Curve where a loco tipped over. The derailed train collided with a bungalow and caused the whole building to rotate.
As well as British derailments, Mike has been involved in the investigation of a number of incidents overseas. He described some of these and also highlighted the differences between maintenance practices in Britain and abroad. For example, in 1985 a derailment occurred in Bangladesh when wagons rated for 33 tonnes had been overpainted to show their capacity as 37 tonnes. Subsequent testing showed that the train would be borderline safe operating at the correct capacity but was bound to derail when loaded to 37 tonnes.
Mike rounded up his talk by explaining some of the other project he is involved in, such as training Network Rail’s derailment team and presenting seminars and courses at a military engineering university in Rio Di Janeiro. He ended by giving some personal thoughts on the current investigation of derailments in the UK.
10th November 2016Cyclic TopIan Dean, Principal Engineer [Track & Civils] for Network Rail
Please see report from Milton Keynes Section. December 16th
8th December 2016The Great Orme TramwayBrian Hark
Brian began by outlining key dates and facts relating to the construction and design of the tramway and tramroad: The lower section tramway having opened in 1902 followed by the upper section tramroad in 1903. Four heritage tramcars operate in pairs, 2 on the upper and 2 on the lower section. The tramway vehicles are hauled by steel rope running in sub-surface conduit whilst the tramroad vehicles are hauled by steel ropes running between the running rails and supported and guided by horizontal and vertical rollers. Whilst the lower section vehicles have on-board speed detection and emergency braking by gravity applied sled brakes, the upper section tramcars have manually applied friction tread brakes and rail-head brakes. All of the haulage machinery, electrically powered winches, is located at the Halfway Station. Signalling is audible/visual using mimic and CCTV.
Brian went on to explain the ownership and staffing of the Tramway. He defined the engineering and operating objectives as well
as more detail on the tramway’s construction and vehicles. This was supported by photographs of the system.
Brian rounded up the talk by deliberating the maintenance challenges faced by the tramway and how these compared and contrasted to those of heavy rail. These included research into: track gauge and vehicle gauge relationships; provision of gauge variation in curves; the provision of coned wheel treads; and the canting of running rails. A lively discussion completed the evening before Brian received thanks.
12th January 201737 Years of London Underground Permanent Way Maintenance – A Personal ReflectionAlex Spring
Alex began by discussing his 37 year career in LU and the roles he fulfilled: From his beginnings as a Civil Engineer Trainee in 1978 and culminating in the position of Head Assurance Manager for the Chief Operating Officer in 2015.
Alex described the trackform and how it has evolved over 4 decades. He described the maintenance challenges faced by a network of just 1,000 track kilometres that sees 1.34 billion passenger journey’s each year and carries 30MGTA.
Examples include:
• Just 3 hours of productive time in each shift.
• The constant battle to hold back the Thames with Victoria Station subject to flooding in 20 minutes if the pumps fail.
• The need for tunnel cleaning to minimise the risk of fires. This evolved from a 200 strong team of women sweeping the track by hand, post war, to an unsuccessful rail vac in the 1970s. Hand cleaning has since been reinstated and is likely to continue as development of a new cleaning train has stalled due to funding.
• Track geometry data moving from 8 weekly to daily recording, leading to a data overload for system management and for the maintenance teams.
• Extremely tight gauge clearances.
• LU is the only organisation outside of the emergency services to be permitted to have breakdown/fire engines with blue lights. Each has a dedicated BT Police driver which allows them to navigate London traffic responding to track incidents in a reasonable time to restore services.
The evening was rounded up with a question and answer session before Alex received thanks.
9th February 2017Ballast Track - Past and FutureLevente Nogy, Senior Design Engineer, Network Rail
Levente began by discussing his background;
15
SECTION ACTIVITIES
joining Network Rail 14 years ago after studying and beginning his railway career in his home country of Romania.
He began the technical aspect of his talk by describing the functions and properties of ballast before discussing the interface between concrete sleepers and ballast. The design has changed little over the past 170 years and recent experiments in Austria have revealed very limited point loads between ballast and the underside of sleepers, much like a person lying upon a nail bed. This does not provide the even constant pressure that was assumed and is concentrated at the sleeper ends. Research has also revealed that pressure distribution under the track is not at a 45⁰ angle as assumed previously but just 17⁰, creating very concentrated pressure over a small area of ballast.
Various solutions are being investigated and implemented to overcome these problems:
The first is under sleeper pads (USPs); these prevent puncturing of the sleepers and increase the contact area. Lab tests undertaken at Birmingham University on behalf of Network Rail showed an increase in contact area from 5-8% to 30-38% with USPs, this supported the claims of the manufacturer. The pads will come embedded in sleepers making installation easy. They are approved for installation within NR and take up from the Routes is increasing, with LNW Route planning on installing within all renewal sites from CP6. Pay back due to reduced maintenance, i.e. tamping, is expected within 4 years.
Frame sleepers which provide additional longitudinal support are also being investigated. These have been installed in Europe since 1999 with no reported tamping being required to date. Problems with original designs which included longitudinal cracking due to insufficient reinforcement and cracking at corners have been addressed in later designs. Frames provide very high lateral stability with welding being possible on up to 170m radius curves. One or two fastenings can be used depending on location within a curve or straight. Tamping is restricted though to S&C machines which have adjustable bank and rotating tines. The cost is high so in the UK they will most likely be considered in limited locations e.g. micropiling sites; stiffness transitions; and crossing supports. An alternative to the frames are intermediate blocks within conventional sleepers. These provide almost the same benefit but can be retrofitted with existing track. These may have an application within crossings.
The evening was rounded up with a very good debate before Steve Whitmore gave thanks.
NOTTINGHAM & DERBY SECTION
18th January 2017Ground deformation model of brunel’s 3km long box tunnelPaul Clarke, from AECOM’s multidisciplinary Rail Asset Management and Tunneling Team
As an iconic structure, representative of the rich heritage in the UK of not only railway, but
civil engineering, Paul and his team were very excited with the opportunity to monitor the Box Tunnel as part of the Great Western Route Modernization.
Paul began the talk by introducing Box Tunnel, where he marvelled over the fact that despite it being 2,917m in length, the great western railway tunnel was less than 2 inches misaligned when the two ends met in 1833.
He went on to explain the brief he and the team had over a six-week long track closure. Working in an integrated team, AECOM used real-time remote condition monitoring in order to verify the predicted structural behaviour, as the grade 1 & 2 listed tunnel was lowered. He explained that due to the variable ground/geology surrounding the tunnel, two thirds of the tunnel is lined with brick. While some of this is required for load bearing, some has simply been built to catch any falling rock. Knowing the condition of the rock behind this brick was important in order to accurately predict whether or not the track lowering would alter the integrity of the tunnel. Further to these complexities, limestone mine networks extend to within 1m of Box Tunnel, and the subway excavated in 1928 is also located in close proximity.
Once these complexities were recognised, standard trackbed investigation procedures meant that a ground model was produced where the fault lines and geology were mapped out. This model was used to predict the behaviour of the tunnel during the lowering process and helped to determine the positions of the remote monitoring instrumentation and determine potential risks and action plans. Despite the model predicting that the tunnel would be sound throughout the lowering process, Paul explained that remote monitoring throughout the procedure is very important. Although in this instance the modelling was accurate and no damage was incurred, sometimes the model simply can’t predict how structures will behave. One such example of this that Paul went on to detail, was a project his team worked on. Before the lowering of Patchway Tunnel, the model predicted that the whole tunnel would move up to 8cm, which itself required the development of a safe lowering procedure. Once works began, the tunnel began to move up to 25cm. The team was able to identify, stop works, and come up with a new methodology, owing to remote monitoring. Despite the initial hold up of works, the team was able to better understand the issues and gain that time back.
Paul used these two examples to close with a challenge to the UK railway industry. He challenged us all to become more proactive in monitoring structures and track stability, by introducing remote modelling into regular routine maintenance procedures.
SOUTH & WEST WALES SECTION
12th December 2016Dr Brian Counter, PWI Technical Director
Brian commenced by giving a potted history of his associations with what is now Wales route. Firstly completing renewals works
on the N Wales Coast and then as PWME at Shrewsbury responsible for the lines to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli. Latterly Brian completed a PhD at Treforest (University of Glamorgan) and so is familiar with South Wales as well.
As technical director to the PWI Brian is uniquely qualified to identify and comment on the challenges to the railway industry. In addition to the ongoing maintenance and renewal huge projects like Thameslink and Crossrail were in progress and projects in the pipeline included HS2 and locally South Wales Metro. Brian was able to demonstrate that Cardiff has some of the highest passenger growth rates in the UK. To cope with the increased infrastructure activity the rail industry has recognised that it has a future skills gap that the PWI was attempting to close. With the introduction more trains, does this mean less time for Engineering? We all know that things go wrong with real “human” consequences so can we still achieve standards and quality of track? How can we deliver the future and what makes us slow to improve speed and capacity and why are we so expensive? Does nature play a part in our plans with strange weather and Climate Change? How do we go about future-proofing our railways?
The speaker then went on to describe the PWI involvement with the UK Engineering Council (ECUK). This body, set up in 1981 now comprises 36 institutions with 3 levels of membership to reflect academic achievement and practical working experience. The PWI became an affiliate member of the ECUK in 2014; this means that we partner with a licenced institution prior to obtaining a full licence in our own right which should be in 2018.
The PWI has commenced professional registration of members at all three levels:Engineering Technician (Eng Tech, MPWI)Incorporated Engineer (IEng, MPWI) Chartered Engineer (C Eng, PWI)
Standards are maintained by the Code of Conduct (already applying to all members who are now to use MPWI or FPWI after their names), Continuing Professional Development (which may be logged using facilities on the PWI web site) and promoting knowledge sharing in the workplace and at learned society meetings leading to continuous quality improvement within the industry and at a personal level. Professional registration is now becoming a requirement for promotion within Network Rail with aspirations that all TMEs should be professionally qualified at Eng Tech minimum but IEng being desirable. The PWI is offering routes to professional registration that are tailored to the rail infrastructure industry. Not only is this route more appropriate, quicker and smoother but the PWI has been able to offer significantly lower membership rates to achieve professional status.
University courses now offered academic routes for rail infrastructure engineers at all levels from Foundation Engineer FdEng, through BSc, BEng, and MSc to Doctorate PhD. A structured training guideline would then be followed by review by industry peers to gain professional recognition. Government levies on large employers would significantly increase the funding available towards high
16
SECTION ACTIVITIES
level Engineering Apprentices and these routes would become the industry norm for the future. These avenues would largely enable tomorrow’s generation of engineers to enter the industry but for those seeking advancement today Brian outlined the routes to professional registration for mature candidates which required the candidate to enlist supporters and sponsors and submit a report of their achievements to date. Industry and PWI backing should furnish supporters and sponsors so that in the case of Eng. Tech submission of a report for review could give professional registration within as little as 4weeks without the need for interview. For IEng and CEng more comprehensive reports at stages were required together with a technical review and a standard professional review. Mentors would be required to offer oversight to candidates and some could be volunteers from amongst the PWI membership.
A question and answer session took place at the end of the presentation during which Brian offered to return to Cardiff to offer ‘one to one’ guidance to potential registrants. Future arrangements can be made through the secretary.
9th January 201740 years of challenges with London Rail InfrastructurePaul Ebbutt, Vice President (London)
Reminding the audience that when he joined LUL in 1976 there was no Heathrow Extension, or Jubilee line or Docklands Light Railway the projects carried out on the ‘underground’ network has been considerable. However, the existing network requires maintenance or renewal and Paul described his early experience of the reconstruction of bridges at West Ham where British Rail declined or refused to co-ordinate their adjacent renewal with LU and within 5years repeated the disruption and additional costs of their own bridge renewal.
A recurring theme of the presentation highlighted the lack of forward thinking or political expediency in planning major projects. Paul mentioned the design of the Heathrow Extension and the loop to T4 without the provision for Terminal 5 which was eventually made as a terminal station. In the engineering of the Heathrow Extension the impact of failure of the New Austrian Tunneling method and the eventual remedial measures with substantial cast iron segments was examined. The aftermath of the NATM collapse at Heathrow had substantial effect on Crossrail and Jubilee line planning in the 1990s which were initially intended to use this method of construction.
Docklands Light Railway was a project Paul was involved in from 1983. Similar, but different to, Tyne and Wear Metro and Manchester Metrolink these schemes were neither heavy rail nor heavy tube. Originally budgeted at £77m the original Docklands scheme featured a loop into the city at Aldgate but this scheme was unaffordable and Tower Gateway (near Fenchurch St Station) became the elevated terminal. Construction contracts were also changed from design specification to performance specification and at contract signature the loading case was reduced by hand written amendment. Following the
opening on August Bank Holiday Monday 1987 docklands property values shot up dramatically such that a second London Terminal at Bank was constructed with sub-optimal gradients and curves and required a second fleet of rolling stock with enhanced fire protection for tunnel working.
Service experience of the system using 80lb rail, in many places fastened directly to bridges or viaducts has seen problems with supply of ‘nonstandard’ and therefore special order rail, wheel/rail noise on curves and viaducts and experience with movable crossings, special track fastenings, baseplates and retro fitting of trackside noise screens. Like Tyne and Wear Metro (Phil Kirkland, October 2016 presentation) the loading case also caused challenges in maintenance and renewal equipment). But overall the public perception is of a successful system that has been progressively expanded.
Paul was involved with one of the many schemes which developed Crossrail in the initial Aylesbury/Amersham – Reading/Maidenhead branches through central London to Shenfield. The design integration with the Post Office railway at Moorgate/Liverpool Street was retained through subsequent iterations although the Post Office railway was closed and mothballed shortly afterwards.
Maintenance of the infrastructure is a vitally important function of any railway and Paul was involved with asset management at the time of PublicPrivatePartnership (PPP). This was delivered through Infracos who were responsible for the asset condition assessment. Metronet was a failure as an Infraco and eventually went into administration and later reverted to direct LUL control. The assurance regime that developed under PPP allowed the contractors and particularly consultants to pick off the cream jobs that gave maximum improvement in key performance indicators, for the minimal input. After return to LUL control co-ordinated strategic investment could be adopted which had not been incentivised under PPP and the speaker was able to demonstrate improvements to long timber bridges and drainage on the sub-surface lines.
Current projects under development at the end of a career were the extension of the Northern Line to Battersea using earth pressure balance tunneling and step plate junctions at Kennington to the existing line.
Our speaker concluded his presentation with a summary of key issues that he would recommend for consideration by his successors:
• Infrastructure planning including the future Asset Management considerations possibly by Client Contractor Collaboration at each stage.
• Design and Build for construction with Risk management understanding.
• Engineering should embrace Innovation but this should be tempered by risks and the future maintenance. Efficient and smart design must similarly consider the risks to the organisation and its Professional Indemnity liabilities.
• Team development to look to the future and successful project management by the engineering team.
13th February 2017Switch protection using the top of rail friction modifier systemJay Benson, JB Rail
This presentation was the subject of a paper published in the January 2017 PWI Journal jointly with Dr Christopher Hardwick of LB Foster Ltd. Jay corrected two errors in the paper the first of which was that he now worked for JB Rail.
He commenced with a more detailed background to the Barnt Green curve on the Redditch branch and the use of friction modifiers to reduce noise after water sprays were ineffective. Organisational changes caused maintenance refilling to be overlooked and residents noise complaints to resume. It was whilst making a manual application of Keltrack to bring about an immediate benefit to nearby households on the Friday afternoon before a hot August Bank Holiday that Jay noticed the reorientation of the bogie of an approaching train on reaching the area of application accompanied by an immediate reduction in squeal. The reorientation caused a reduction in the angle of attack and flange contact pressures. This was demonstrated by video clips of before and after application at other sites showing reduced flange contact area which could not be fully appreciated in still photographs in the published paper.
Jay then went on to describe his visit to Cemetery Junction, Nuneaton, investigating very high wear rates to the trailing RT60 ‘F’ switch. Flange lubrication was not the issue. Grease was very visible but the fact that the switch blade was reducing in area made it progressively weaker and more vulnerable to flange attack and non-compliance with regulation SO53. A ‘Eureka’ moment happened using the experience of Barnt Green which suggested using top of rail friction modifier Keltrack to reduce the angle of attack. After installation the need for remedial weld repairs and replacement was demonstrated by a timeline as corrected fig 9 in the published paper where the speaker explained that the captions were transposed (error No.2 in the published paper).
Further examples of Keltrack application at switches were given together with validation of the effectiveness when refilling was neglected due to ordering difficulties or management changes caused a return to rapid switch wear.A variety of questions were asked by members at the end of the presentation and all were comprehensively answered by the speaker before David Williams gave a summing up of his recollections of SO53 monitoring nightmares as part of a vote of thanks.
THAMES VALLEY SECTION
4th January 2017Choosing the Right Trackform for a High-Speed Railway (HSR)Niall Fagan, Head of Track Engineering, HS2 Ltd.
Niall opened by saying that his talk would
17
SECTION ACTIVITIES
cover the process being adopted to determine the optimum system design solution for HS2, based on experience and best practice from other railway administrations compared with the specific requirements for the total HS2 system operation. He proposed to show a series of slides illustrating the process.
There are fundamental requirements for a HSR, which focus on integrated system design:
• Dedicated passenger-only route (preferably, to avoid differing operating speed and performance for mixed traffic)
• Good vehicle-track interaction
• Optimal track stiffness and elasticity, including rail deflection
• Optimal horizontal and vertical track and catenary alignment
• Consistent track support platform
• Track-bridge interaction design
• Very strict tolerances for geometry, dimensions and wheel/rail profiles, during both construction and maintenance
• Critical track velocity and geodynamics analysis
• Control of noise and vibration
It is a complex technical system with multiple interactions between train, track, earthworks, structures, power, EMC, control systems, communications, noise and vibration.
The Sponsor’s requirements for the operational performance of HS2 are that the railway shall be capable of operating with high levels of train service performance, reliability and resilience including during degraded conditions. This will allow operation at a maximum design speed of 360km/h (normal operating speed will be330km/h) of 18 trains/h (>60 MGTPA). Niall then compared HSR trackforms around the world, which showed that ballasted track is the traditional trackform, but that slab track routes are increasing worldwide, especially in China and where train speeds and tonnages are >300km/h. HS2 will deliver a safe, sustainable and reliable system to provide exceptional levels of service. It will be an integrated amalgam of systems; proven, best in class principles and technology; interoperable to European standards; and high capacity (up to 18 trains/h in both directions). The indicative timeline for HS2 shows the progression of the project from Royal Assent expected in February 2017 to the completion of Phase 2 in 2032.
Niall said that there is no standardised method for choosing trackform for a HSR. HS2 therefore developed a structured evaluation process based on objective evidence. This evidence includes written or published reports, specific work carried out by consultants on behalf of HS2 (these having proven technical expertise and HSR operations experience) and modelling with appropriate validation. Contributors include current HSR operators, contractors experienced in the design, construction and maintenance of HSR trackforms, and various UK universities.
Next, Niall explained the issues identified in determining the trackform for HS2:
1. Can ballasted track cope with HS2 speeds and tonnages?
2. Can slab track cope with possible earthworks movement and deformation? and asked “What is the most appropriate solution for HS2?”
The original assumption was for slab track in bored tunnels and ballasted track elsewhere. The current status is for slab track Euston to Chilterns Tunnel and Bromford Tunnel into Birmingham Curzon Street, with ballasted track between. This may still change in the light of emerging evidence. Niall discussed the optimisation of ballasted track – rails, sleepers, under sleeper pads (USP), ballast and bitumen asphalt sub-grade. He then looked at the predicted tamping effort for HS2 speed and tonnage, based on a statistical analysis by Systra/SNCF of all LGV maintenance databases. The tamping effort has been shown to be reduced using USPs and bitumen asphalt sub-base methodology developed by TUG and SBB for OBB, practical results from which when applied to HS2 conditions show very close correlation. Taking the technical performance of ballast as his next theme, Niall said that the key issues were the effect and management of ballast migration, hard spots and transitions between ballast and slab.
Moving to slab track, Niall said that this trackform has been shown to be better suited to higher speeds and tonnages due to its engineered design for specific locations. Earthwork risks can be mitigated, and slab track systems design has evolved and been proven in service over many years in widely varying conditions. There is a standard earthworks application for HSR, utilising a layered stiffness approach which is similar for both trackforms. The German standards could be used as the baseline – they have a known performance history. The technical performance of earthworks depends on the ability to control movements both in terms of settlement and heave, as these can have an adverse impact on operations.
Ballasted track can better cope with settlement as line and level can be restored by OTMs. Slab track can be adjusted vertically (within limits) by the capability in the rail fastenings. In both trackforms heave is difficult to rectify. On Phase 1 of HS2, 155km is on earthwork; 83km in cutting and 72km on embankment. Ground improvements are typically based on the geology and inherent properties of the existing ground, height of earthwork structures, requirements of the track system (stiffness and movement limits) and train speed geodynamics. For any HSR trackform, ground improvement techniques must be field-proven and rigorously controlled in terms of quality.
Next, Niall discussed the earthwork-bridge and trackform transitions for which designs are still evolving. He followed this by looking at the geotechnical issues – the dynamics of high speed and the mitigation of Rayleigh wave propagation. Finally, on technical performance Niall described the remedial options available when slabtrack settlement occurs.
In terms of the construction programme benefits of the two trackforms, Niall said that because ballasted trackis laid linearly from a railhead progress can be delayed by uncompleted civils or structures work. Slab track can be installed at several work fronts concurrently and is thus not as vulnerable to other events. Whilst the installation of ballasted track is much the more rapid process, the opportunity for parallel working when installing slab track can create up to 9 months of additional float in the programme should the need arise because of delays at other sites in the project.
Noise and other environmental issues such as carbon footprint, waste and sustainable sourcing were then discussed by Niall, making a comparison between the two trackforms which showed close correlation except in the case of waste; the disparity here is due to the need for periodic ballast screening/renewal/topping up on ballasted track.
Finally, Niall looked at the performance risks to operations due to component and geometry defects, temperature variations and maintenance and renewal implications for the two trackforms, discussing the mitigations for each. In terms of safety, a slab track system offers a slight improvement over ballasted track due to its inherent stability, particularly in fluctuating temperature conditions.
In conclusion, Niall made the following points:
1. Currently there are no consistent methods for choosing an appropriate trackform for a HSR project.
2. Established HSR administrations tend to rely on tried and tested solutions that work for their operating models.
3. Increase in HSR development in Asia, the Middle East and now in the UK with different operating conditions, along with the desire for increased train speeds and higher traffic densities, has highlightedthe importance of having a structured evaluation process, based on evidenced data.
4. This will ensure that the most appropriate trackform for project specific constraints and operating conditions are chosen so that the required performance and reliability targets are achieved during the life of the railway.
1st February 2017Farnworth Tunnel ReconstructionBeth Dale, Project Manager J.Murphy & Sons
Beth described the reconstruction works and her part in its implementation, using a combination of video, slides and comprehensive narrative to take us through the complete cycle.
The line between Manchester and Euxton Junction via Bolton (LOR 6001) is being electrified on the 25KV OHL system as part of the Northwest Electrification Project. Farnworth tunnels, 270m in length and situated between
18
SECTION ACTIVITIES
Kearsley and Farnworth stations (ELR MVE 1) presented a major engineering problem to the project as neither of the single bore tunnels was of sufficient size to accommodate the OLE infrastructure. Both tunnels also had escalating structural deficiencies and gauging issues.From a number of options, Beth said that the decision was taken to enlarge the existing Up Line bore to take both running lines and accommodate the OLE, the smaller Down Line bore being made operationally redundant on completion of the works.
LOR 6001 is a busy route and total closure to carry out the works was not an option; therefore the Down Line tunnel had to be kept open for bi-directional working for the duration of the work. To ensure reliable operation this entailed carrying out extensive repair and stabilisation works to the tunnel prior to the closure of the Up Line tunnel, including the spraying of a concrete lining throughout. Clearances were extremely tight and a daily check using a trolley-mounted “go/no-go” structure gauge was carried out.
Enlargement of the Up Line tunnel to a circular bore of 9m diameter (from c.4m), lined with concrete segments backed with grout, was carried out using an open face tunnelling shield TBM. This machine, weighing some 350 tonnes, was manufactured by a local company, fully assembled on its premises, stripped down for transportation to site and then re-assembled on site in preparation for work. Virtually all the machine’s components were sourced in the UK. The concrete segments were manufactured in Cheshire, again within a reasonable distance of the site. Work commenced in April and was completed 8 months later in mid-December.
The tunnelling process progressed at a rate of 4-6 rings of segments each day. Spoil was removed by dumper trucks shuttling to and from a disposal area. Track is conventional CWR on a 1.5m depth of ballast, in which 2 membranes are incorporated. The tunnel is designed to be waterproof, no carrier system through the tunnel is required so no drainage has been installed.
During the tunnel boring operation, a number of problems were encountered. Beth’s slides graphically illustrated the various occurrences and the remedial measures devised and adopted:
• Two areas where there were up to 15 courses of brickwork in the crown following repairs over many decades – slowed progress, necessitated negotiating short extension to the programme.
• Buried brick walls, timbers, voids, sands and gravels - much use made of straw particularly for filling voids, light and versatile and readily available from local farmers.
• Face collapses – first occurrence shored up with timber and steel struts, second occurrence (more serious and extensive) necessitated excavating a shaft from the surface to locate the TBM and dig out the collapsed material from around it.
• Excavation passed under the A666 dual
carriageway with only 8m of cover below the road surface. Lane closures were implemented which were justified as settlement of up to 200mm occurred in the road surface.
• Excavation in close proximity to live Down Line tunnel. Constant monitoring put in place, in the event a maximum of 10mm deformation was recorded.
Beth then turned to further items of major work that had to be carried out as a consequence of the tunnel reconstruction and its incorporation of both Up and Down Lines:
• Track realignment extending for some 2.4km.
• Complete reconstruction of Farnworth station, and extensive works at Moses Gate station.
• Reconstruction of overbridge to the south of Farnworth station (roadway improved from one lane and a footpath to two lanes and a compliant footpath as a consequence).
• Track level foot crossing closed and replaced by footbridge.
Finally Beth said that the work at the tunnels had preserved their Grade 11 listed status; the reconstructed former Up Line tunnel had been designed to be future-proof for up to 100 years, and the operationally redundant former Down Line tunnel would be used for material storage and access. Local community engagement had been good, fostered through positive information and facilities for site visits. The Local Authority had been supportive, particularly so in agreeing a cost-effective specification for the footbridge to replace the foot crossing; the work had also been beneficial to the local economy and employment with the use of manufacturing facilities and the sourcing of materials in the area.
WESSEX SECTION
6th September 2016Talk on High Output Track RenewalsDoug Swinney
Dave Stuckey opened the meeting and introduced Doug Swinney from the High Output Track Renewals team based in Swindon. Doug ran through the planning and build-up of the High Output capability, the organisation of the teams, the logistics of the operation and some of the challenges and innovations required to keep the machines working at maximum efficiency.
The need to move to a 24/7 railway and reduce the time taken for and cost of track renewals has driven the search for a high output solution. Network Rail therefore decided to invest in the development of suitable fleet machines, initially operated under contact, but brought in house from 2016. The business case for the programme was prepared in 2001, with initial contracts placed in 2002 and the first machine commissioned in 2004. Since then more machines have steadily come on stream and there are now 2 relaying trains and 5 ballast cleaners. Initially work was carried
out on the Western, with the LNE following in 2006. The remaining zones followed with the Southern being the most recent.
The main offices are located at York and Birmingham with a number of teams located throughout the country, supported by a number of High Output Operating Bases (HOOBs), where the trains are located, serviced, loaded and unloaded. Overall the operation employs around 1200 people.
The works are programmed well in advance and detailed 3D surveys are carried out either by a survey train or RILA laser survey mast attached to the front of a service train. Following the survey, detailed design work is carried out and the work planned in detail. With the need to maximise the productivity of the trains each one must be correctly loaded and pathed to the site each night. Timing is critical as the trains can take up to 5 hours to travel from the nearest depot to site and “Golden Paths” are required to ensure that they are not delayed. At site the trains can take 1.5 hours to set up with 90 minutes production and around 4 hours for the finish off and follow up work, including tamping. Equally importantly at the end of the shift is getting the trains back to the depot on time, so that they can be unloaded, serviced and reloaded for the following night in the 7 or so hours available.
The machines can ballast clean around a mile of track per night and around three quarters of a mile can be relayed. Generally the relaying takes place first with the ballast cleaning following. The machines cannot work on sites where a membrane has been laid and cannot work through tunnels and platforms and thus these sites need to be relayed conventionally, however, third rail sites can now worked on with the conductor rail being left in place.
Safety is a key consideration and all teams are fully briefed on the site and work before each shift. With the need for shift working fatigue is monitored and teams are put up in hotels and driven to site each night. In addition exposure to ballast dust is also minimised. The machines are designed to work with adjacent lines open (with a 20mph TSR on adjacent lines), apart from when they are being set up/ broken down and a total block is required. Thus when working on a 2 track railway, one line is open to traffic and on a 4 track railway 2 lines can be open to traffic with a TSR.
With possession times steadily reducing (an average Saturday night possession has reduced from 11hrs 27mins in 2012 down to 9hrs 1min in 2016), the need to reduce set up time has driven the search for a quicker method of taking possession and setting up the required protection. By the development of Flexible Train Arrival Points (FTAPs) the team have been able to reduce times from around 20 mins (involving 17 phone calls) down to 3 mins (involving 4 phone calls). This initiative is now being rolled out, although different procedures will apply in 3rd rail areas and this method does prevent any third parties being able to work in the block. Another issue which the team are now having to address is the recently introduced “5/15 Rule” where trains can only travel at 15mph within a possession and 5 mph in a worksite, which is therefore reducing productivity.
19
SECTION ACTIVITIES
Following a question and answer session, Jim Wheeler thanked Doug for a fascinating insight into the operation of the High Output trains and proposed the vote of thanks. Dave closed the meeting at 20.00. 6th December 2016Bermondsey Dive Under and Bridge StrengtheningGreg Thornett and Charles Wood
Greg started by giving a brief introduction of the line and the Thameslink Project which aims to reduce overcrowding on Thameslink and other commuter services by providing 12 car capacity and 24 train paths per hour (tph) through the “Central Core” with 16 of these services then going through a remodelled London Bridge. The Bermondsey Dive Under provides grade separation which will allow these services avoid conflict with both South Eastern and Southern services.
The Dive Under required the demolition of existing brick viaducts and the construction of 9 constituent structures, including the main box, approach ramps, fly-over and new reinforced earth embankment. It also included providing a new pedestrian and cycleway through Bolina Road.
The successful contractor, Skanska, value engineered the project and this resulted in the approach ramps being formed of precast reinforced concrete arches erected on the old, cut down, brick piers rather than the providing reinforced concrete portals on piled foundations. The shape of the main box was also altered to aid construction.
The civil engineering works also included assessing 49 structures. This resulted in 20 being strengthened and 7 had ballasted decks installed to replace longitudinal timbers. The total value of the works was in the order of £80M. Several video clips were interspersed with the slides and these enhanced the presentation. Many questions were asked including was there any risk in using the 180 year old brick arch piers and foundations to support the new concrete arches. The risk was mitigated because there was no increase in weight to support and by settlement monitoring. Ken Newell, Section Secretary, gave the vote of thanks.
3rd January 2017Crossrail Infrastructure MaintenanceJon Jarrett, Head of Infrastructure - Crossrail
Jon works for Rail for London Infrastructure (RfLI) who are working with Crossrail Ltd in the construction phase of the new Railway and will become Infrastructure Manager upon its opening in December 2018 when it will be re-branded the Elizabeth Line. Jon spoke about the management and maintenance of the new Crossrail assets currently being created.
RfLI Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) will have the responsibility as Infrastructure Manager for all the new fixed infrastructure and railway system assets, from Westbourne Park/Royal Oak Portal (near Paddington) in the west, through to the key route split at Stepney Green Junction and on through both branches to the Pudding Mill Lane Portal (near Stratford) in the northeast, and to Abbey Wood station on
the North Kent Lines in the southeast; assets 5 new Stations at Paddington, Canary Wharf, Custom House, Woolwich and Abbey Wood, 5 intermediate tunnel shafts and 5 Portal Head Houses packed with M&E systems and the rebuilt Connaught Tunnel. Crossrail route assets beyond Westbourne Park in the west & Pudding Mill Lane in the northeast remain with Network Rail as Infrastructure Manager.
Trains will commence using Crossrail’s Central Operating Section (the new under London Tunnelled railway) in Dec 2018 between Paddington (Crossrail) and Abbey Wood with the new 90mph Class 345 trains. This will be followed by connecting in the Shenfield services using Pudding Mill Lane Portal, the Reading and Heathrow services through Royal Oak Portal from December 2019. Facilities to divert trains into Paddington & Liverpool St Mainline Stations will be retained for emergencies.
The assets include 41 track miles, mostly in new tunnels where max line speeds are 100km/hr with cant deficiencies based on actual train speeds (trains stop at all stations, 24 tph in central section). Except within platforms the track is (1) continuously curving & (2) never level with a number of gradients of 1in30 & a max of 1in26. The Rail LHT350 60kg/m rails on slab systems, with bi-directional CBTC Signalling with a 25kv OLE fixed bar. The platform edge doors are full height and tunnels ventilated.
The Infrastructure Maintenance Management Centre will be at Plumstead. There will be three teams. (1) Stewardship & Compliance* (2) Delivery & Quality (3) Planning & Performance* (*RFL directly employing a majority of the teams). The training school will be at Ilford and 20 apprentices are currently employed who will be trained in multiple disciplines. Infrastructure maintenance will be limited to non-operational hours of around 3 hours per night and two 56hr possessions per year in central section. RfLI will employ digital pattern recognition supported by track inspectors, not patrolmen. Three of the Class 345 trains will be equipped with track & OLE geometry and CCTV to give 100% coverage each day. Remote condition monitoring is being incorporated into assets to identify poor infrastructure performance to proactively target maintenance.
A Linsiger MG31 rail milling machine is being procured for use to combat RCF. Rail life is planned to be 15 years. Robel / Plasser UK are building two Maintenance Trains including Rail Transporters which will be configured for either replacing switches or for catenary maintenance. At all strategic locations Maintenance PODs (strategic Spares Storage Hubs) will be established. The vote of thanks was proposed by Alan Green.
7th February 2017 West Anglia Route Upgrade John Hilliard
John Hilliard started by delivering two ‘Safety Moments’; These included important learning points over handover and hand back (Cardiff re-signalling) and the problems of short bearers in S&C (following the recent Lewisham
derailment) before giving his talk on the capacity enhancements on the West Anglia route between the new Lea Bridge station and Angel Road.John described the work required to increase peak capacity at the lower end of the West Anglia route to allow a 4tph service to operate between Stratford and Angel Road, specifically designed to relieve capacity between Tottenham Hale and Stratford, as well as giving additional opportunities to serve Angel Road without reducing capacity on the two-track section of the main line.
Whilst there was space for additional tracks on the down side where there had been lines / sidings in the past, designing an electrified route that met current standards proved very challenging. In addition, Crossrail 2 is currently under development, but is not authorized, so had to be taken into account where possible, but without incurring unreasonable additional cost.
For the WAML enhancements, a number of options were considered comprising:
1. Provide an additional route from the Temple Mills (Stratford) lines to Tottenham Hale.
2. Extend the additional route up as far as Angel Road.
3. Only extend as far as Northumberland Park.
4. Carry out the above but include additional intermediate crossovers.
In 2014 a Single Option Development Agreement in Principal was granted for option 2 with the DfT and TfL funding the southern section of the upgrade (with some funding from Network Rail) and the GLA and TfL funding the northern section. This split of funding did give rise to some difficulties with closing options down. This problem included the Abellio franchise requirement to re-build the station at Northumberland Park, which was not part of the original project.
The design of the Permanent Way was relatively straightforward with a CVs 13 crossover and turnout being installed to create Lea bridge junction at the south end, and running the route north through a reinstated platform at Tottenham Hale, a new platform at Northumberland park and on to Angel Road.
The design provides the new line in the middle of a 4-track formation, so the line will need to be moved across and new OHLE support provided when Crossrail 2 eventually four tracks the route. It is planned that the NTC – New Track Construction Train (capable of installing the track at up to 200 yds/hr) will be used to install the new line, working from south to north, however, the section around Northumberland Park will need to be installed later to allow time for the level crossing closure process to go through and the delayed construction of the station to have progressed to a suitable point.
In order to comply with Electricity at Work Regulations 7, which feed into Group Standard GL/RT 1210, it was necessary to undertake very detailed modelling of the OLE wire
20
SECTION ACTIVITIES
height throughout the route, especially the clearance at structures. Compliance with these regulations does not permit dispensations without very detailed risk assessments and generally there must be compliance without consideration of the cost.
Compliance with GL/RT 1210 gave particular problems where under and overbridges are adjacent, including at UB 666 and OB 667 (where the Gospel - Oak Barking line crosses the route); at Ferry Lane bridge where the line had to be lowered on slab track fitted over a major water main (the supporting piles having to be short to avoid the Victoria Line running immediately underneath!); and at OB 1397 and OB 1398, although eventually the problem here was solved when LUL agreed to the removal of footbridge 1397.
An additional problem arose at Tottenham Hale (immediately adjacent to the constraints at Ferry Lane bridge) where compliance with wire height and stepping distance caused severe problems in achieving acceptable cross falls on the platform and took a small section of the platform out of operation.
Work is due to commence on site during the current year with works completing in the autumn of 2018. The enhancements will deliver much needed capacity improvements on the West Anglia route. Following a question and answer session, Richard Workman thanked John for a very detailed and informative talk.
WEST YORKSHIRE SECTION
20th December 2016 Five decades of derailments worldwide Mike McLoughlin
Mike presented his somewhat macabre subject with considerable skill and sensitivity. It was also fascinating to discover the development in the analysis of railway accidents during the last fifty years.
Mike has been involved in developing some of the techniques shown, often having to fight for such changes to be accepted and adopted.
A notable obstacle to discovering why an accident occurred was the fact that the operators have, understandably, proceeded with repairs as quickly as possible. This resulted in investigators arriving to find the site of an accident devoid of debris and disruption. Fortunately, it was possible to find and analyse damaged rails in scrap yards and damaged rolling stock and locomotives in workshops.
Several images demonstrated how it is possible to determine precisely what happened by analysing marks on the rails, rolling stock, locomotives and ballast. These can reveal that several vehicles passed over a fault in the track before one vehicle was derailed and others followed.
An image of one of the crashes at Morpeth’s notorious curve, showed the strength of the British Rail Mark III Sleeping coaches, all of which were intact, albeit without their bogies, despite tipping over onto their sides. Ironically, the strength of the coach bodies hampered the efforts of the Fire Service to free passengers.
This prompted the railway industry to donate one coach to the Fire Service to help them to develop methods and tools to gain access in future!The fact that Mike has been involved in investigating incidents in Australia and India, in addition to Britain, is a testament to his knowledge.
17th January 2017 Slope alarms and landslips Professor Neil Dixon
Neil Dixon provided a thoroughly fascinating presentation on a different way of monitoring landslips. This method has a variety of potential uses including rail. Many decades of research has led to the team identifying the optimum apparatus to undertake the job and the trigger points that can be used to sense movement. The basic and simplistic description of the principle involves using an acoustic pole within a borehole of gravel material. The movements cause the gravel to create noise, which can be quickly sensed and turned into warnings. The examples of installation were wide and varying and there are several sites, which have proved a proof of concept for the idea. It is being used on Freight Only line in Southampton successfully and Network Rail is looking at other uses. It is clear that a lot of effort has gone into developing this concept and the perseverance has most certainly proved worthwhile. 21st February 2017Ballast vacuums: lowering tracks, risks and costs? Simon Twiner, Railcare U.K.
Railcare UK is a company within the Railcare Sweden Ltd. group. The group was established in 1992 by two Swedes who saw a machine vacuuming dust in the tunnels of the Hong Kong Metro and felt that the system could be developed for other uses. The company entered the UK market in 2005. The Swedish machines were too big for the UK gauge and so a smaller machine was developed that fits within the British W6a gauge. All the machines are developed completely in-house. There are currently about 40 machines worldwide.
The current UK machine is 20.5m in length and weighs 61 tonnes tare, or 90 tonnes laden. It is self-propelled at a site speed of 10 mph maximum and is hauled to site at up to 62 mph. The machine takes about 15 minutes to set up on site. The normal procedure is to excavate 4 beds, then the sleepers are moved to allow the stools left under the sleeper positions to be excavated. The excavation is then back-filled with new ballast as required and hand tamped using Robel hand tampers. The machine has a capacity of 18 cubic metres of excavated fill, which is sufficient for about 18 beds, before it needs to empty its hoppers. The aim is to produce a finish that is of a high quality and does not require further possessions for tamping.
The normal reach of the vacuum hose is 5.4 metres from the centre line of the track and the standard excavation is 1.1 metres below rail level. It can be used for maintenance, heavy maintenance and renewals. Typical tasks are removing wet beds, clearing drainage systems, resleepering and reballasting. The cost of hiring a machine and crew is about £27,000
per week. It is said to be economical because it does not require follow up possessions for tamping.
YORK SECTION 1st December 2016From 10.1/2” to 7ft’ - a nostalgic look at the railways of Central and North Wales in the late 1940’s and early 1950’sJohn Meredith, PWI Fellow
John, a retired BR Civil Engineer, is an accomplished author and has an interest in all forms of transport. Among his publications in1994 he wrote the book ‘Croydon’s Tramways’. He was also involved for many years in producing the NYMR ‘Moors Line’ magazine. John opened by stating not long after starting with BR at Waterloo Station he became entitled to free train travel. These concessions lead to two early trips photographing some well-known and also now long forgotten railways across Wales. As this was not long after BR nationalisation he showed some interesting steam engines that were still worked along the branch lines. Photos included the small boiler 1893 standard gauge 0-4-2 locomotive ‘Gazelle’, which had been used for Army training during WW2 at a local munitions depot. A 7 ft. gauge quarry railway originally attached to the GW broad gauge system still survived together with its two working steam engines. We were taken on a trip to Porthmadog and Boston Lodge where the 1’11.1/2” gauge Ffestiniog slate wagons and locos stood rusting ‘out of use’. Photos of the Welsh Highland track bed and abandoned structures were the only thing to be seen as the steelwork had been stripped out for the war effort. Photos of Tywyn Wharf on the Talyllyn Railway, long before serious heritage restoration had taken place. These were fascinating glimpses of the past. Also photos of a 4ft gauge incline from a quarry on which flat cars carried double rows of slate wagons. Among the many others photos were shots of the now abandoned standard gauge Caernarfon route.
12th January 2017 The Queensferry Forth Crossing, ferries, rail and road bridgesJohn Addyman, PWI Fellow
John ended his working career with BR in the York P Way Design Office in the late 1960s prior to becoming a successful Highway Engineer with North Yorkshire Council. He has continued with his interest in railways and is currently President of the North Eastern Railway Association.
John stated crossing the Forth had always been an arduous crossing especially since the 11th century, when it was on a pilgrimage route to Dunfermline Abbey. The well-illustrated presentation started with a diagram of crossing points and then a 1930’s photo of a car being loaded on a wild day into a small ferry at Queensferry illustrating how dangerous the crossing could be. The presentation concentrated on the 8296ft long railway bridge, especially the construction period 1882 -1890. Several little known photos had been discovered by John in the Scottish Records Office, he used these photos in his presentation. The Bouch designed Tay Bridge disaster of 1879, which killed 79 people, and
21
SECTION ACTIVITIES
subsequent 1887 replacement was explained. Bouch foundations for the first Forth rail bridge were abandoned and the current cantilever design proposed by Sir Benjamin Baker and Sir John Fowler accepted. The 1890 bridge was built by the Glasgow firm of Sir William Arrol and Co. This company also built London Tower Bridge in 1894. Photos of the Forth construction yard, complex trial pre-assembly and a new mechanical riveting machine helped illustrate the talk.After an explanation of the other crossings points, the 1936 Kincardine and 1964 Forth Road Bridge; John gave a brief description on the design and current construction of the new second Forth Road Bridge, using some of his own photographs. The bridge deck is built from imported Chinese steel and is due to open in 2017/18.
2nd Feb 2017Ballast vacuums: lowering tracks, risks and costs? Simon Twiner, Railcare U.K.
Simon stated that he is a recent recruit to the railway industry and admitted to not being a Track Engineer; his background is in plant and plant maintenance. He stated Railcare have been operating their on-track ballast vacuum machines in the UK since 2005. The machines concept was developed in Hong Kong in 1992. Up to 5 machines are available to the UK. He gave some case histories of working machines in the UK and Europe, together with applications and limitations. Also, a list of the technical specification of the Railvac system - the machine is 20.59m long; has a maximum 22.5t axle load and weighs 61t un-laden. Spoil handling capacity is 20-25 cubic metres.
Simon stated that the industry has increased pressure to deliver enhancements, including electrification, in less time and for less money; innovations in localised ballast cleaning, track lowering, drainage systems and mast hole excavation using the machines are worth the investment. If required the machines can work within a single rolling stock gauge, allowing work to be carried out in limited weeknight possessions. The vacuum pipe used in the excavating can work outside the normal operating envelope to typically clean cess ballast; paths for drainage or for cable work up to 4m from the machine centre line. One machine is equipped with a rotary cutting head.
An actual example of using a machine to reduce a localised 125mm high spot over-lift in S&C near Ladbroke Grove, near Paddington, was explained. 80m of the over-lift was reduced in height in one shift to correct a reduced overhead line clearance. When excavating ballast, an excavation gradient must to be created. On plain line the machine with a 300mm under sleeper excavation can typically clean out18 beds per hour. Currently with hand tamping, using Matisa hand held compactors, about 10 beds per hour can be back filled and compacted. Backfilling and tamping are currently the limiting production factors. Total open excavation length is restricted to reduce potential loss of track top, thus a rolling excavation and backfilled worksite is systematically created along the site. Spoil handling currently also restricts use. On board hoppers with shoot doors can side tip to cess or in a siding. A 5cu.m skip hopper system is currently being developed, thus allowing dirty
spoil to be offloading without fouling cesses, also allowing more dirty material to be removed clear of site. This is not a high output system, but allows small possibly congested areas to be excavated and repaired quickly.
22
thepwi.org
Check out our events calendar forPWI exhibitions, seminars & meetings.
FaceBook: PermanentWayInstitution
Twitter: @PermWayInstit
LinkedIn: Permanent Way Institution
You Tube: The PWI
Instagram: @the_pwi
