Rail Engineer - Issue 215 | July - August 2025

Rail passenger experience

Key rail upgrades announced

The Department for Transport has announced the goahead for over 50 road and rail projects across the UK, including five key rail upgrades.

Resetting HS2

The HS2 project is being reset by new CEO Mark Wild to bring costs under control and provide a realistic opening date. 14|

18|

Network Rail & Colas win the Railway Challenge

Eight teams entered locomotives at this year’s Railway Challenge, but only one could come away with the top prize.

A recent online event assessed and discussed the perception and reality of the passenger experience. Clive Kessell reports.

A tale of two stations – Amsterdam and Stuttgart

David Shirres describes two major station projects that were among the highlights of the recent IMechE technical tour.

Stannah transforms Network rail stations with step-free access

Stannah Lifts Services has installed 13 passenger lifts to date at several SWR stations along the Wessex route.

Railway 200: the evolution of stations

Our series on the creation of the modern railway has covered many critical developments. Attention now turns to the development of stations.

A new era of passenger-focused communication

Rail Engineer caught up with Rail Delivery Group’s Nicole Jennings to discuss its recently launched Visual Disruption Maps.

Accelerating OLE isolations: a new era for electrified railways

Siemens Mobility is piloting a new technology to streamline the isolation process.

RBX1 Sekisui FFU Level Crossing Surface System

Sekisui presents its long-life, low-maintenance FFU level crossing system offering enhanced safety, durability, and sustainability.

42| Rail Live 2025

The UK’s largest outdoor rail event recently returned to Porterbrook’s Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre. We provide a snapshot of everything on offer.

First ETCS Business Readiness Congress

ETCS is more than a new way of signalling, requiring a cultural shift in how railways operate to unlock its full potential.

Twenty-five years of CIRO

The Chartered Institution of Railway Operators celebrated its 25th anniversary year with a Jubilee Lunch for guests from across the industry.

Discontinuous electrification in the Cardiff Valleys

Rail Engineer has previously covered the upgrade of the Core Valley Lines. Here, we highlight the engineering challenges overcome to deliver these enhancements.

Batteries included

Battery traction is now a mature technology that will increasingly be part of rolling stock orders with significant implications for electrification.

Malcolm Dobell gives his opinion on West Midlands Trains’ new Class 730/2 EMUs which entered service in early June. 36|

48|

Rail Live 2025: eye-catching innovation

Rail Live was founded as a showcase for the latest rail plant and equipment. Matt Atkins explores the event’s highlights.

For significant passenger and freight flows, rail remains the most efficient way of transporting large traffic volumes. Why is this? 12|

Zonegreen expands lifesaving depot protection

March 2024 was the first fatality-free year since 2016, but depot injuries are rising. Zonegreen is leading efforts to improve working conditions.

Class 730/2 enters service

Railway 200: why rail is so efficient?

Demonstration of the Coventry Very Light Rail technology

Professor Felix Schmid reports on the demonstration runs of the CVLR on the city’s streets between May and June.

What next for HS2?

"The answer to our transport crisis is lots of boring little things like bus lanes, tram systems, and new stations, and not one grand mega-project (HS2) that is only going to touch a handful of people." These are the words of Andrew Gilligan, who was a special advisor to Rishi Sunak.

While more tram system and stations are required, it is not credible to suggest that HS2 only touches a handful of people when tens of millions use the congested West Coast Main Line (WCML) each year.

Yet Gilligan was one of few people advising Sunak when he decided to cancel HS2 Phase 2 to Manchester and replace it with the widely derided Network North strategy which could be said to be made up of Gilligan’s “lots of boring little things”. Those not consulted included the Rail Minister, Network Rail, HS2, Mayors of the affected local authorities, and the National Infrastructure Commission, which was specifically set up to advise Parliament on such national infrastructure priorities.

Birmingham’s Curzon Street HS2 platform is planned to have tracks laid at only 3 of its 7 platforms.

In this way, a project that was 15 years in the making, with constant all party support, was arbitrarily cut back by those who did not understand the consequences of their decision. This was evident at subsequent Parliamentary committee hearings when Ministers claimed that there was no WCML capacity problem. Yet without HS2 Phase 2a to Crewe, the current WCML service north of Birmingham will have to be reduced by one train for every HS2 train introduced and there can be no significant increase in WCML freight traffic which currently carries 90% of intermodal container trains.

With costs spiralling out of control something had to be done about HS2. Yet the October 2023 decision to cut HS2 Phase 2 generally only cut costs in future years, slashed the project’s benefits, and wasted billions already spent. For example, Birmingham’s Curzon Street station will now only have tracks at three of its seven platforms. Cancelling HS2 Phase 2a to Crewe reversed an agreed plan, taken after four years of Parliamentary scrutiny, that was deemed to be the best way to increase WCML capacity.

As we describe in our feature ‘Resetting HS2’, meaningful action is only now being taken to bring HS2’s costs under control. The Transport Select Committee (TSC) was advised that HS2 is being reorganised to provide effective project control, and that Main Works Civils Contracts are to be renegotiated. HS2 CEO Mark Wild also explained how HS2’s budget and programme is being reset.

Diagram showing that

is the main rail freight route.

The TSC considered that gold plating had caused much of HS2’s high costs. Its chair was astonished that no-one knew why HS2 was designed for a 400km/h speed. She has a point, as an informed client would have known the rationale for HS2’s technical specification as shown in DfT documents of which those questioned seemed unaware. Without an understanding of the rationale for this maximum speed, Rail Minister Lord Hendy’s view that HS2’s very high speed is due to ‘zealotry’ is, literally, ill informed.

Hendy did acknowledge the severe WCML capacity constraint north of Birmingham and advised that options to provide more capacity are being seriously considered. This includes a new line on the HS2 Phase 2a route as proposed by the Manchester and West Midland Mayors. However, he stressed that Government could not contemplate a new line until it could be shown that HS2 Phase 1 is under control.

Although this is understandable, Parliamentary powers to build the Phase 2a route will expire in February 2026 unless a Bill is passed to extend them. Time is therefore running out for this one-off opportunity to significantly increase WCML capacity.

The Stuttgart 21 project shows that the UK is not the only country with a seriously over budget and delayed project. Yet, as our feature explains, this project offers significant benefits and, unlike HS2, the

German approach is ‘I’ve started so I’ll finish’. This article also explains how the major station project at Amsterdam Centraal will increase capacity by reducing the number of its tracks.

The evolution of railway stations, as described in an article by Mark Phillips, is the latest in our series of Railway 200 features. Another such feature is a technical explanation of why railways are, and most probably always will be, the most efficient way of transporting large traffic volumes. This is something that decision makers need to understand.

The Coventry Very Light Rail (VLR) vehicle is an example of the benefits of rail. As Professor Felix Schmid reports, the alternative of an electric bus service would require three road rebuilds over the life of the VLR.

Although Bob Wright’s report on the transport spending review has some good news for the rail sector, the lack of any mention of the Ely capacity improvement scheme and pausing the Midland Main Line (MML) electrification is cause for concern.

MML electrification has been paused due to the introduction of bi-mode stock which requires only discontinuous electrification. How this works on the Welsh core valley lines on which battery EMUs (BEMU) operate is the subject of Malcolm Dobell’s feature. We also report on an informative IMechE BEMU seminar. However, this did not discuss wholelife system aspects (e.g. freight operation) which need to be considered to determine whether discontinuous electrification is an appropriate option.

Innovation of passenger information systems is considered in two separate features. Clive Kessell reports on a recent online event which considered the perception and reality of passengers’ experiences while Matt Atkins discusses

the development of Visual Disruption Map videos. We also explain why passengers using West Midlands trains will be pleased to travel on its new Class 730/2 units.

Implementing ETCS signalling presents huge challenges. The nature of these challenges and how they are being overcome is described in Paul Darlington’s feature on the recent ETCS Business Readiness Congress. One speaker at this event advised: “no individual really grasps the whole challenge, and those who say they do are dangerous.”

Other events attended by our writers included Rail Live at which there were almost 300 exhibitors with much innovative plant on show. As always, this was held at the Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre which, since it was taken over by Porterbrook, now has a 3.5km electrified test loop. As we report, the 3.2 km Stapleford Miniature railway which hosts the annual IMechE Railway Challenge now boasts a turntable. This year’s challenge was won by the Network Rail and Colas team.

After attending the 25th anniversary lunch of the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (CIRO), it was fascinating to learn of CIRO’s history and how it supports today’s railway operators. Just as it is important that different engineering disciplines understand each other’s challenges, it is important that engineers understand the role of operators. We hope our article about CIRO helps in this respect and indeed that all this issue’s features provide useful information for all railway professionals.

Editor

David Shirres editor@railengineer.co.uk

Production Editor Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com

Production and design Adam O’Connor adam@rail-media.com

Engineering writers

bob.hazell@railengineer.co.uk

bob.wright@railengineer.co.uk

clive.kessell@railengineer.co.uk

david.fenner@railengineer.co.uk

graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.co.uk

malcolm.dobell@railengineer.co.uk

mark.phillips@railengineer.co.uk

paul.darlington@railengineer.co.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.co.uk

Advertising Craig Smith craig@rail-media.com

Gary Simpkins gary@rail-media.com

Rail Engineer

Rail Media House, Samson Road, Coalville Leicestershire, LE67 3FP, UK.

Switchboard: 01530 816 444 Website: www.railengineer.co.uk

Rail Engineer Videos http://rail.media/REYouTube

Editorial copy to Email: news@rail-media.com

Free controlled circulation Email: subscribe@rail-media.com

The small print

Rail Engineer is published by RailStaff Publications Limited and printed by PCP Ltd.

© All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Part of: www.rail-media.com

Key rail upgrades announced by DfT

On 8 July, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced the go-ahead for over 50 road and rail upgrades across the UK, including five strategic road schemes and five key rail upgrades.

Backed by over £92 billion from the Spending Review settlement, the review sets out what the government says is the biggest boost to England’s transport infrastructure in a generation as well as unlocking schemes that deliver for the taxpayer and drive growth.

The batch of projects, which aims to ease congestion, cut journey times, and bring greater access to jobs and opportunities, will, says the government, support 42,000 jobs and pave the way for 1.5 million new homes as part of the Plan for Change. The rail enhancements will connect thousands more people to the rail network.

The rail projects announced include £10.2 billion of rail investment, all outside of London and the South East. These include:

» Reinstating passenger services between Bristol city centre and Portishead.

» Delivering three new stations, bringing thousands more people closer to a railway.

» Funding the Midlands Rail Hub, creating new rail links for more than 50 locations.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: “Transport is the backbone of our economy, which is why we are giving them the record funding boost they need, putting taxpayers’ money where it matters most and making everyday journeys easier.”

Portishead and Bristol

The West of England Combined Authority and North-East Somerset Council’s plan to reinstate passenger rail services on the disused line between Portishead, Pill, and Bristol Temple Meads received a government pledge for a further £27.6 million towards the £182.21million scheme, bringing a total government contribution to more than £47 million.

The new hourly services will connect an additional 50,000 people to the rail network and support a significant new housing development. The line, which was closed to passengers in 1964, is seen as a critical way to ease traffic congestion and support economic growth in one of North Somerset's fastest-growing towns. The new service is expected to significantly reduce commuting times between Portishead and Bristol city centre.

Stations reopening

Three new stations announced in the statement will provide full step-free access throughout, fully accessible footbridges with lifts and steps connecting platforms, bike shelters, and car parks (including EV charging), with taxi and bus stops.

Two new stations have been approved between Taunton and Exeter. Following long local campaigns, these will be constructed at Wellington and Cullompton, whose original stations both closed in 1964. These will support significant expansion plans for the towns and the new stations and services will be critical to allowing local people to access jobs at major employment centres such as Exeter.

Wellington is a growing town, which has had around 2,000 new homes built in the last few years and has a projected increase in housing numbers with about 6,000 more residents. Without the new station, that growth would not be deliverable. Shared use paths will link the station to the town centre.

The new Cullompton station will be built next to the motorway services at Junction 28 of the M5. Campaigners say that this will be key to unlocking the building of 5,000 homes nearby in the Culm Garden Village development.

A new station at Haxby, located five miles north of York, will be used by York to Scarborough services and be the town’s first rail connection since the original station closed in 1930. The 20,000 residents within 2.4km of the new station will no longer have to rely on roads to travel to economic centres such as York and Leeds and the station could support prospective developments for 3,155 homes. Shared-use paths will connect the station to residential areas of Haxby. The £24 million project is being progressed jointly by Network Rail and City of York Council. It is planned to be operational by 2028.

Midlands Rail Hub

The Midlands is set to see a huge improvement to its rail services. The new Midlands Rail Hub will be the region’s biggest and most ambitious rail improvement scheme to date. Significant government funding will mean huge numbers of additional trains and extra seats can be added to the rail network in and out of Birmingham every day. This will support new homes and create greener growth across the Midlands while providing faster, more frequent rail links for more than 50 locations and creating almost 13,000 construction jobs.

Birmingham is one of the most complex and congested parts of the British rail network. Currently, the railway through central Birmingham is not equipped to meet the passenger demands of

the future. Midlands Rail Hub plans to increase capacity at Birmingham Moor Street station, next to the new HS2 station at Curzon Street. It also aims to ease congestion on key rail routes from central Birmingham.

The scheme will add up to 300 additional trains on the rail network per day in and out of Birmingham, up to 20 million extra seats for passengers each year. It will provide faster, more frequent or new rail links to over 50 locations including, Nottingham, Leicester, Bromsgrove, Nuneaton, Worcester, Hereford, and Cardiff.

The project will build two chords at Bordesley, just east of Birmingham city centre, as well as engineering interventions throughout the region:

» The West Chord consists of improvements between Bordesley and Moor Street, allowing access to Birmingham Moor Street from SouthWest and Wales, allowing additional trains towards Worcester, Hereford, Bristol, and Cardiff.

» The East Chord will create an access from the East Midlands, allowing direct access for trains from cities such as Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham.

ECML digital signalling

The East Coast Mainline (ECML) is already benefiting from an increase to capacity and frequency. Network Rail will continue to upgrade this to digital signalling. This landmark programme will set the blueprint for signalling improvements across the country, providing a safer, more reliable,

and better performing ECML. It will provide real time information and has the potential to reduce delays by one third, while also creating 4,800 new roles across the rail supply chain and establishing the development of digital skills across the rail sector. Incab technology using European Train Control Signalling (ETCS) is the future of the railway, and the East Coast Digital Programme will deliver a more reliable and greener railway for passengers in the long term.

The bad news

It was not all good news for rail investment, with four major rail projects put on hiatus. Most controversially, the third phase of electrification of the Midland Main Line has been paused. This will delay the introduction of faster rail services to Sheffield, and Nottingham, as well as risking the continuity of the electrification supply chain. As a result, Sheffield will remain the only major UK city without electrified rail services.

The York Area Capacity and Performance project has also been paused. The DfT said this was ‘until the wider strategy for the ECML – aligned with the Northern Powerhouse Rail aspiration’ – can be further developed.

The final phase of the South West Rail Resilience Programme has been placed on hold although advance works to support cliff monitoring and drainage near Dawlish are in hand. Also affected is the congestion relief scheme at Peckham Rye station which has been paused for the current Spending Review period. This is the largest interchange station without step free access to platforms which, as a result, leads to overcrowding at peaks.

There was also no mention of the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme which would significantly increase intermodal freight train movements from Felixstowe as well as passenger trains through the station. Network Rail had submitted a business case for this project to the DfT in 2022.

Proposed appearance of Haxby Station.

Resetting HS2

In a statement to Parliament on 18 June, Transport Minister Heidi Alexander’s statement drew a line in the sand in respect of HS2. She emphasised that its problems of “budgets calculated then blown, promises made then broken” were now in the past. She explained how the project was being reset by its CEO Mark Wild to bring costs under control and provide a realistic estimated final cost and opening date.

She referred to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s vision of great cities in the Midlands and the North, which had been untapped at best and ignored at worst, becoming places of opportunity again as the high-speed rail revolution linked them to address their future capacity needs.

Her statement referred to the letter from Mark Wild in March with his initial assessment of the project and the Stewart Review, which was published on the same date as her statement, on the governance and assurance of major transport projects that particularly considered HS2.

Wild’s assessment

Although 75% of HS2 work should have been completed according to the current schedule, Wild found that only around a third has been finished. Hence opening the line in 2033 will be challenging. He also considered that the 14 months allocated to test the railway was insufficient as more realistic time would be 36 months.

HS2’s latest cost estimate for Phase 1 is £61.8 billion, excluding Euston. Wild advised that the priority was stabilising the Main Works Civil Contracts (MWCC) which carry most of the financial risk.

One of the main reasons for the project’s cost and delay was that construction commenced too soon without stable and consented designs. Furthermore, cost and schedule estimates were optimistic, and the contracting model did not drive

performance. The MWCCs were awarded at a scale never seen before in UK infrastructure and put almost all risk on HS2, effectively turning them into cost-plus contracts.

He found that HS2 is not set up to effectively manage delivery. Although HS2’s local project team structure requires hands-on, commercially astute contract management, its commercial and technical functions are under resourced despite HS2 having a large headcount. Hence, while the corporate centre has grown excessively, delivery teams lack the resources they need.

Based on his experience getting the Elizabeth line opened, Wild advised that he had four priorities:

1. Simplifying the day one railway to provide a staged approach to reduce risks and improve reliability and cost certainty while reducing the delay to the railway’s opening. This might involve initially operating at a reduced speed without automatic train operation.

2. Ensure risk is more appropriately shared with the supply chain by renegotiating MWCC contracts which may require Government support.

3. Implement a new and radically simplified HS2 organisation structure that will address the identified issues of delivery capacity, culture, and capability.

4. Reset HS2’s relationship with Government to establish alignment and enable successful delivery.

Stewart Review

In September 2024, former Crossrail CEO James Stewart was asked by the Transport Minister to conduct an independent review of how the Department for Transport (DfT) governs and assures the delivery of its major projects with a particular focus on HS2. His 131-page report covers HS2’s governance, assurance, cost, schedule and benefits, capability and culture, MWCCs, and Euston. It also has a section on wider lessons learnt for major

projects in transport and other sectors.

The governance and assurance section made various recommendations to ensure that there was greater trust from improved visibility and sharing of the issues. This included the formation of a Ministerial Task Force.

This also highlighted how political decision-making has both accelerated and delayed the schedule. Pressure to maintain momentum forced the schedule ahead of where it wanted to be. Meanwhile, slowness of decisions caused significant delays leading to rising costs. The review recommended that there should be a political buffer of stakeholders prepared to challenge decisions taken by politicians.

The review also noted that the 2013 Hybrid HS2 Bill was launched when the design was only 4% complete. It noted that most experienced major project practitioners consider that taking planning and development decisions off the back of an immature design is a mistake.

It also considers consents. Despite HS2 having Parliamentary powers to construct the line, the Hybrid Bill process required over 8,000 consents to be obtained. While the schedule assumed an approval period of 56 days, in practice consents took far longer and, in some cases, took over a year as the UK planning regime is more burdensome than other countries. This was a major cause of HS2’s increased cost.

The consultation in 2012 resulted in a significant cost increase as it increased the length of HS2’s tunnels from 23km to 36km. This included 8km of ‘green tunnels’ shown under construction here.

The review’s section on cost control showed how costs had been driven up by:

» Lack of a culture to reduce costs.

» No iteration of scope and design to reduce cost.

» Failure of cost control.

» Schedule prioritised over cost.

» Uncertainty and changing scope requirements.

» Environmental decisions.

» Cost estimate optimism.

» Reliance on point estimates rather than ranges.

Various commentators consider the Stewart Review to be a credible report. Indeed, in her statement, Alexander advised that all the recommendations of the Stewart Review had been accepted. Yet Stewart’s view that the line’s design speed caused high-cost increases is not that of the person responsible for HS2’s specification.

His review states: “A railway that was originally intended to increase capacity became a vision to build the best and fastest high-speed railway in the world. This effectively ruled out the cost savings expected from utilising HS1 design.”

In contrast, in 2023, former HS2 technical director, Andrew MacNaughton advised the Transport Select Committee (TSC) that: “Every part of the scheme was designed, in reality, by the people who had designed HS1. That was a scheme of similar complexity, through a densely populated area, with long tunnels into London. The incremental cost of new capacity at high speed is marginal over the cost of new capacity at lower speed. Speed is really not an issue.”

As shown below, the recent TSC also considered this issue but was unaware of the rationale for HS2’s maximum design speed despite having questioned MacNaughton less than two years previously.

Transport Select Committee

On 9 July, Mark Wild, Rail Minister Lord Peter Hendy, and the DfT’s Director General, Major Rail Projects Group, Allan Over appeared before the TSC. Wild stated that he appreciated the time and space he had been given for his reset which will be complete by early next year. This will create a reliable cost and time range that will be progressively narrowed up to the end of the project.

He emphasised the need to renegotiate the MWCCs. At notice to proceed, contactors could not price for risk and so made many contract exclusions which were transparent in these completely normal, well-constructed legal contracts. Yet there was no incentive to maximise productivity.

Notwithstanding the cost overruns, Lord Hendy noted that there was a forest of cranes in Birmingham constructing buildings in anticipation of HS2 which has been estimated to be worth £10 billion to the local economy. He is sure HS2 will be successful and noted that the Jubilee line originally had a poor business case, yet it supported an astounding increase in economic activity in East London.

Mark Wild noted that the Stewart Review also considered that the benefits of HS2 were underestimated as it will join the Birmingham and London conurbations together in an economic union. Alan Over advised that the direct transport-related benefits of the Elizabeth line are exceeding expectations.

The need for speed

HS2’s gold plating was frequently mentioned and, in particular, HS2’s maximum design speed of 400km/h on which trains capable of 360km/hr will normally run at 330km/hr.

Hendy found it “hard to understand why there was such zealotry about the highest speed high speed railway in a relatively small country”. Alan Over could not explain why HS2 was designed for such high speeds as this decision predated his appointment. TSC chair Ruth Cadbury voiced her astonishment that it was not clear why this decision was taken.

Yet in 2012, the DfT published a review of HS2’s technical specification which explains why 360km/hr trains were chosen. Furthermore, in November 2023, a TSC hearing, with a different chair and membership, questioned former HS2 Technical Director Andrew MacNaughton.

MacNaughton advised that expert engineering advice had shown it “...is simply not the case that speed impacts the alignment if you are going to build a new railway. It would be pretty much the same railway whatever speed you ran it at,” and the incremental cost of HS2’s high speed is marginal.

He emphasised that 360km/h high speed trains are now not exceptional and are proven technology. Furthermore, the business case for HS2 Phase 1 published in 2020 considers that running at lower speeds would only reduce costs by 10% while reducing benefits by 33%. One benefit is that running the trains at higher speed reduces the number of trains required.

The view of the panel at the recent TSC was that designing HS2 as a 400km/hr railway has resulted in a significant increase in costs. Wild, however, considered that HS2’s cost exceedances were mostly due to the cost control issues identified in the Stewart report. While it may be the case that HS2 should not have been designed as a 400km/hr railway, it is not credible to dismiss this decision as zealotry without understanding and refuting the original case for this speed. The DfT representative on the panel should have known why this decision was taken and been able to advise the TSC accordingly.

North of Birmingham

The panel was also asked when there will be a decision on how the rail capacity constraints north of Birmingham will be addressed following the cancellation of HS2 Phase 2 to Manchester.

Hendy advised that when HS2 Phase 2 had been cancelled in October 2023, the consequence on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) north of Birmingham had not been considered and thus there were no alternative plans for the WCML. He stressed that he was very much aware that WCML capacity constraints needed to be resolved to drive the benefits of connectivity such as jobs and homes north of Birmingham. However, he didn’t feel that Government could contemplate progressing further WCML capacity improvements until it could prove that HS2 Phase 1 was under control.

He hoped the TSC could take comfort that the DfT was carefully considering what needs to be done including a review of the work done by the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

Route proposed in the ‘Opportunity through connectivity’ report commissioned by the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

Hendy advised the committee that he hoped to say more about this in a few months’ time. It is to be hoped that he can do so as the Parliamentary powers to construct a railway on the alignment of HS2 Phase 2a expire in February 2026. Also of note is the revelation in Wild’s letter to the Minister that HS2 Phase 1 will have passive provision for a new line as it will retain the spurs to the former Phase 2a and 2b sections.

Good work done

During the hearing, Wild often praised the work done by the HS2 team and its contractors. He stressed he was very proud of his HS2 team and that just because the project has failed its mission doesn't mean that the project hasn't got great resources including many talented younger engineers. Yet, he said, “we've ended up in a situation with HS2 locked in our own bureaucracy and my job is to move those really great young people to the front line.”

He noted that the three MWCC contracts are the biggest civil engineering contracts ever let in this country and felt their epic scale needs to be acknowledged. He considered that HS2 has some of the world’s best contractors who are doing extraordinary work to the required quality with 34,000 people out there working very hard to deliver the project with a good safety record.

Other panel members agreed. Over, for example, felt that it is crucially important that the efforts of everyone working on HS2 are recognised. Though the project has gone wrong at the systemic level, it is not the fault of these individuals who are doing a great job in very difficult conditions.

When it opens in 10 years or so, HS2 Phase 1 will do a great job of improving connectivity as well as relieving passenger and freight capacity on the southern part of the WCML. Despite its huge cost, and being over 10 years late, its eventual long-term benefits are likely to exceed its cost. However, until then the project will no doubt be subject to continued criticism.

In this respect, stakeholders, including Government ministers, need to reaffirm and advocate HS2’s benefits as the Stewart Review recommends.

Network Rail & Colas win the Railway Challenge

Since 2012, the Railway Division of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, supported by the Friends of the Stapleford Miniature Railway (FSMR) which operates the railway, have run 13 Railway Challenges. These require teams of young engineers to design and build a 1/5th scale miniature locomotive. The teams and their locomotives are then judged against up to 15 locomotive performance and team presentation challenges.

The overall winners of this year’s event were a combined team from Network

Rail and Colas Rail who first entered the competition in 2019. They also won the energy storage, autocoupler, and business case challenges.

Second was the team from the Nürnberg Institute of Technology who won the traction, autostop and location announcement challenges. Third place went to Aachen University of Applied Sciences who won the maintainability challenge. Poznan University of Technology from Poland were given a special award for the traction challenge for which they were only 0.24 seconds behind the winners.

locomotive.

In total, eight teams entered locomotives while there were four entry level teams who were judged on presentation challenges such as design and business case. The list of entrants and prizes are shown below. The prizes awarded to the Nürnberg, Aachen, and Poznan teams show the international nature of the competition which also had a locomotive from Poznan in Poland and entry level teams from France and Australia.

To provide fresh challenges, each year there are changes to the rules. New for this year was an optional challenge of building a locomotive to accommodate the driver, rather than the locomotive being operated from the coach behind it.

Also new this year was a turntable which was ceremonially opened at the event by Stapleford Estate owner Lord Gretton, Railway Challenge Organising Committee Chair Simon Iwnicki, and IMechE Chief Executive Alice Bunn. It was designed by FSMR personnel and built over a two-year period by volunteers from FSMR, Network Rail, AtkinsRéalis, Alstom, HS2, and the Universities of Huddersfield and Sheffield.

The turntable has 21 spurs which significantly increases the space available for teams to work on their locomotives. It

also provides the operational flexibility to change the running order in the event of a failure. The turntable is one of various proposals to increase the capacity of the railway which currently limits Railway Challenge locomotive entries to 14 teams.

While the Railway Challenge locomotives may be small, they present big challenges and so provide their teams with a valuable learning experience. To date, around 1,500 young engineers have benefited from their participation in the Railway

Challenge. The IMechE’s Railway Division provides a valuable service to the industry by developing future railway engineers in this way.

A detailed account of the 2025 Railway Challenge will appear in the next issue.

Rail passenger

EXPERIENCE

Rail Engineer often describes innovation in the world of passenger information systems, online train running information, ticketing initiatives and suchlike, all based around the technology and its deployment. But how effective are these developments and do they fulfil the needs of the different types of passengers? A recent online event assessed and discussed the whole perception and reality of passengers’ experiences - what is good, what needs improving, and overall satisfaction levels.

A keynote address by Steven Ireland, head of stations, security and customer relationships at Network Rail, spoke of the need to understand the variety of journeys made, be it for business, pleasure, or visiting family. Passengers need confidence to travel but incidents do still happen, and some safety concerns remain. Customer satisfaction is linked to economic growth, so it is important to get it right. Accessibility, heavy luggage, help with push chairs – all create anxiety, but one of the worst fears is confusion between Train Operating Companies (TOCs) and the threat of being penalised if on the wrong train. GBR will

hopefully bring all of this together, but the helpfulness of on-train and station staff is key. The age of the digital traveller has arrived and with this a new dimension for ticketing, scanning procedures, and integrated journey plan opportunities. Even the speaker admitted he is often confused by it. A railway where passengers are always valued must be the objective.

Rebuilding passenger confidence

Hosting a group discussion was Tanya Arnold, a regular train user from Yorkshire who invited comments from experts representing Scotrail, Avanti, Transport Focus, Network Rail, and Campaign for Better

Transport. Passenger confidence was seen as a big factor with concerns on seat availability, sufficient carriages, tickets at the best price, consistency at stations, communication of train delays, comfortability of waiting areas, and information provision all being regular causes for complaint.

So often, social media reporting provides the passenger with better information than that gleaned from local staff, where integrated service training on technical advances is often inadequate. Train disruption does occur but advice on whether tickets can be used on another TOC is not understood. Often, PA announcements and indicator displays are incorrect. ScotRail aims to get staff out from behind ticket office counters and be more face-to-face with customers.

A real turn off for rail travel is engineering work and bus substitution. This happens far too frequently, much of it being caused by what a colleague describes as ‘lazy safety’. Most

passengers will avoid travelling by rail and either use their car or not travel at all. Often, the bus services are un-coordinated between start and end points. Extended journey times become inevitable, and the loss of revenue must be significant. More effort is needed to create rail services by an alternative route with associated ticketing to match.

Ticket fraud is estimated to cost £400 million annually. This is a huge problem, and a wider clampdown is needed to catch persistent offenders and hold them to account. However, genuine mistakes do occur, and the industry must not hound people who genuinely do not understand the validity of tickets.

The age of the smartphone is with us, but the industry must still provide for passengers who do not possess them. With smart phones comes the excuse of the phone being lost, out of power, or it having been stolen, which applies to staff as well as travellers.

Mindful of the criticism, some action is being taken: a joint exercise between Network Rail and Avanti at Birmingham New Street is improving information flows and advice; joint training of Southeastern Trains and Govia Thameslink staff at London Bridge is underway; and joint ticket acceptance between TransPennine Express and Northern (both governmentcontrolled companies) is happening. Staff presence at both stations and on trains is viewed as vital with constant monitoring of unsocial behaviour such as feet on seats, vaping, and use of bad language being regular problems.

The digital traveller

Another group session with representatives from the Rail Delivery Group, Go Media, Network Rail, and a consultant, noted the encouraging move from paper to electronic ticketing. Ninety-four percent of people under the age of 60 have smart phones with 84% under 80 similarly equipped. That said, significant legacy systems still exist, and these must be brought together under GBR. Magnetic stripe tickets still account for 25% of sales but are costly to design and operate. Paper tickets will remain for many years but hopefully with the mag stripe removed and replaced by a barcode. Open Access operators are not integrating into Network Rail requirements.

The Darwin system which co-ordinates information for passenger information systems has existed for many years and works on the principle of a single source of truth, even if on occasions it is wrong. Journey planning advice

needs to improve at providing practical advice. An example would be a five-minute connection at a station where the incoming train is often seven-minutes late and thus the connection is not made.

Connecting the passenger reliably to the internet is a challenge and 5G provision throughout a journey is the objective. This will have to be a joint project between established Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and, where coverage is difficult, radio provision from Network Rail (GBR in the future). There are different ways this can be achieved which are being explored. Even then, the provision of mobile phone charging points on trains is not universal and the problem of people being penalised for not being able to show a ticket happens all too frequently.

The prospect of a seamless journey across different modes of transport is an ambition but integration between even London-based TOCs and the Underground is not currently possible as Transport for London (TfL) does not use bar code readers. This deficiency is being worked on. A closing suggestion that systems must not be built for the lowest common denominator and tough luck on those without smartphones, may not get universal acceptance.

Independent rail retailers

Selling rail travel and making it easy is important. Anthony Smith, chair of the Independent Rail Retailers, explained the massive change in how rail travel can be purchased. There are many online retailers –TrainLine, Raileasy, Assertis, Evolvi, TrainPal, Omio, Fast Rail Ticketing, Trip.com Group – all of which sit alongside the existing TOCs and GBR into the future. Having a level playing field is necessary. Some retailers charge fees but if the ticket is seen as good value, then customers accept it. It is a competitive market which drives good outcomes. The independent retailers have no subsidy and are all self-financed.

Fares can be confusing but the independents do understand how to get the best value. In the drive for fares simplification, there is a risk of some fare increases. Through-ticketing is important to some passengers. Getting tickets that cross ‘islands’ such as London or Manchester can be a challenge. The view that legacy systems for ticketing and reservations must be swept away is controversial but allowing longer periods for booking in advance is needed.

Accessibility for all

A group session with representatives from Transport for All, Transport for the North, Northern Accessibility Panel, and East West Rail looked at various factors to make rail travel easier for disabled customers. Buying a ticket, obtaining information, boarding a train, changing trains, leaving a train, and connecting to other modes can all be challenging, not just for wheelchair users but also those with sensory deficiencies such as hearing and sight loss.

As a baseline, accessibility standards do exist for the design and build of new trains, but more pragmatic build considerations are needed. Fifty percent of stations do not have adequate accessibility provisions in place. Toilet facilities, for example, are often locked due to the risk of vandalism, necessitating the use of access keys.

The desire for level boarding is there but, with rolling stock having different heights and station platform curvature, it is not realistic in the short term. The provision of ramps for wheelchair users, either at stations or on trains, has improved enormously but having staff available to put ramps in place is not always possible. Even with a new railway like East West Rail, level boarding will be a challenge. New build stations need to learn from others and having architects involved from the start is vital.

There are some quick wins: improved public address, station lighting, platform surfacing, induction loops – all can be achieved without having to take possessions. The cost of providing accessible facilities can be very high and money is not always spent wisely, so best value must be considered when competing for funds.

The ticketing dilemma

Understanding the ticketing system is one of the biggest complaints about rail travel and GBR places this as a high priority to resolve. The exact issues were discussed by a panel of people with ticketing experience, representing the Customs and Revenue Growth team, the Fares Ticketing and Retail Programme, Silver Rail Technologies, and Northern Ireland rail operator Translink.

Price is a huge issue, and many different ticket prices exist for the same journey. While this offers choice, many customers do not understand it and pricing needs a more holistic approach across the network. Split ticketing is

often a means of getting the cheapest fare, and three tickets for one journey is commonplace. There can be many different ticket types, for example: fully flexible, specific trains, or advance tickets.

In Northern Ireland, admittedly a much smaller operation, pricing was based on a comparison with bus and coach operators leading to 558 different types of ticket. This has now changed to a mileage basis with fare bands. It has meant there being winners and losers but the mobile mLink ticketing app resulted in 11 million journeys last year, 2.8 million of them being by rail. Something similar might be appropriate in mainland Britain. One typical example involves two stations in Cheshire, both served by Avanti and a similar distance from London but on different routes, where one fare is 40% more expensive than the other.

Rail travel does offer a turn-upand-go service but the price of buying a ticket on the day can be extortionate and this is not

viewed favourably by the public. Some TOCs do offer advance fare prices on the day but not necessarily for the next available train. It is all to do apparently with the regulated fares structure. The use of contactless smart cards linked to pay-asyou go, tap-in tap-out, proves popular with bus transport but can result in high prices when available for rail journeys. The TfL Oyster Card system permits travel on main line rail as far as designated stations within a greater London boundary and this offering should be extended to other city regions. It is noted that Transport for Wales is leading the way to design a system for multi-mode travel opportunities including rail, bus, taxi, and parking, all by means of a tap-in tap-out system.

In summary

This event was interesting in that while it made mention of all the new technologies and innovations to enhance the passenger experience, the effectiveness of these

remains questionable in many areas. The subject is huge with large amounts of variables both internally with service provision and externally with many different categories of customer. It is interesting that leisure journeys represent 37% of rail journeys, now greater than commuting. Slowly but surely the confidence of people using digital technology is improving – having a ticket and other information on your phone was once a challenge but it becomes easier the more it is used.

The concept that it will all become right once GBR is established is an oversimplification as the management team must grapple with the same problems. Thankfully, it is a fact that the provision of services and information is vastly better than it used to be, helped to some extent by social media. We will watch with interest to see how co-ordinating and integrating plans improves the known shortcomings in the future.

a Tale of Two Stations Amsterdam and Stuttgart

Visiting railways outside the UK on the IMechE’s technical tour always provides fascinating insights. In May, this year’s tour visited the Netherlands, Germany, and France. The next issue will have a full report on this tour. In the meantime, for our station focus issue, this feature describes the major station projects at Amsterdam and Stuttgart which were amongst the highlights of the tour.

With its 11 platforms, the through station at Amsterdam Centraal has 73 million passengers per year. Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof is a terminal station with 16 platforms that has 93 million passengers a year. This is comparable to the traffic at London Liverpool Street, the UK’s busiest station. Both these projects will increase passenger capacity though in quite different ways.

Trains, trams, metros, buses, and bikes

When Amsterdam Centraal station opened in 1889, it replaced three terminal stations. The station was built on three interconnected artificial islands in the IJ waterway on the north side of the city centre. As a result, it required the sinking of 8,000 wooden piles. The station was designed by Pierre Cuypers and so resembles the city’s Rijksmuseum for which he was also the architect.

When built, the station had five through platforms and one bay platform. In 1924, the station was provided with additional platforms to give it 10 through platforms, most of which were subsequently lengthened to accommodate two trains simultaneously. As a result, the station now has 10 through platforms and one bay platform. Before the start of the current project, the station’s track layout was not much different from that of 1924. This includes four through track bundles comprising three tracks with a middle track that originally provided for the release of steam locomotives.

This gives it a total of 15 tracks numbered from south to north with Number 1 being the bay platform. The tracks at the station are generally operated as two terminating tracks, albeit without buffer stops in the middle, as most trains reverse directions when they terminate at Amsterdam Centraal.

Centraal station is now a major transport hub served by 11 tram lines, ferry services, a new bus station on the north side of the station, which was opened in 2015, and four metro lines. The most recent metro line, opened in 2018, necessitated the construction of a metro station under the central pedestrian tunnel. It also offers underwater storage space for 11,000 bicycles. During the last decades much has been done to improve the pedestrian flow at the station, including the widening of the existing pedestrian tunnels and the construction of new passages under the station.

(Left) Changes in track layout and passenger movement areas.

(Below) Aerial photograph of Amsterdam Centraal around 1930.

New underground bike storage.

Wider platforms, fewer tracks

Passenger numbers at the station are expected to grow from the current 200,000 a day to 275,000 a day by 2030. The work at Centraal station is part of a national project of upgrades to increase rail capacity on major routes by replacing the current 15-minute clock face timetable with one that provides trains every 10-minutes. This will require the station to accommodate an extra 15 trains per hour.

(Below) The station’s complex double switches. (Inset) Changes to Amsterdam Centraal’s track layout.

During the technical tour, Lee Verhoeff, station policy advisor for Dutch rail infrastructure manager ProRail, explained how this capacity increase was to be provided. Surprisingly, the answer was fewer rather than more tracks. This is because the key capacity constraint is passenger flow. Hence the widening of the current island platforms is essential, and

this can only be achieved by eliminating the middle track between the platforms. This makes it possible to increase the island platform width, typically from 8.6 to 13.5 metres. Other improvements to the pedestrian flow include widening the platform exits and the eastern pedestrian tunnel to three times its current 4.5-metre width. The entrance to the western tunnel has recently been enlarged and made fully accessible for people with reduced mobility. Extra bicycle storage next to the eastern passenger tunnel is to be provided with space for an additional 8,500 bicycles. The removal of the middle tracks provides an opportunity to rationalise the station track layout which includes the removal of the complex double switches on the middle tracks. This requires a dive-under at Dijksgracht, two kilometres east of the station.

On the east side of the station, four life-expired steel bridges over the Oostertoegang on the station’s eastern side need to be replaced over a five-year period starting in December 2024. A fifth concrete bridge of more recent construction has also been replaced so that the throughfare under all of the bridges can be widened. The replacement bridge sections are being shipped to the Oostertoegang on flat barges. They are put into position using a jacking system with a four-metre lift that can rotate the bridge components by 90 degrees.

Progress to date

In March, ProRail completed the first phase of this project by renewing tracks 14 and 15 and replacing the first Oostertoegang bridge. The second phase of construction involves the renewal of tracks

11 and 13, removing track 12, widening the island platform between tracks 13 and 14 and renewal of the second Oostertoegang railway bridge. In this way, the station project is working from North to South. As the current service can be delivered with eight tracks, it is acceptable for either one island platform or one track bundle to be out of service at any time.

In April, two tracks over the new fly-over at Dijksgracht junction were opened. In June, the improved entrance to the western passenger tunnel reopened. This now has 30 access gates instead of the previous 19 gates to resolve congestion at this location.

The project to remodel Amsterdam Centraal station is planned to be completed early in the 2030s when there will be a three-week closure of the station throat. The anticipated final cost is expected to be €1 billion.

International traffic

Amsterdam Centraal station serves four international rail routes including three daily Eurostar services between Amsterdam and London.

Eurostar plans to increase this to five daily services in 2026. In April, a new UK terminal between the central and eastern tunnels was opened at the station which provides security and border facilities to process 650 passengers per train. With further passenger boarding at Rotterdam, this will accommodate around 800 passengers per train between the Netherlands and London. However, due to the planned increase in Dutch domestic train services, once the station enhancement works are completed at Amsterdam Zuid, there are plans to move international services to this station which is at the southern edge of the city.

Stuttgart 21

The new Stuttgart station is part of the much bigger Stuttgart 21 project which includes two other new stations, 57km of new railways including a 25km high-speed line, and 30km of tunnels. It has similarities to the HS2 project. When construction started in 2010, Stuttgart 21 was expected to be open in 2019. The planned opening date is now late 2026. Costs have risen from an estimated €4.5 billion in 2009 to €11.5 billion. It has been widely criticised and has attracted environmental protests. Yet, unlike HS2, it is being delivered in full. When work started in 2010, many protesters were injured when the police used water cannons and batons as they protested against the removal of trees by the station when work started. An inquiry about how the management

Preparing the trackbed for tracks 11 and 13.

Relaid tracks 14 and 15 at Amsterdam Centraal station.

of these protests included a recommendation that there should be better promotion of the project’s benefits. In response to public opposition to the project, a state referendum was held in 2011 in which 59% of voters voted in favour of the project.

Infoturm Stuttgart (ITS) is the organisation set up to promote the project. A YouTube video, produced in 2012, is one such promotion. Its promotion of the project includes diagrams explaining why through stations are more efficient than terminal stations.

In 2020, ITS opened a six-floor exhibition tower which explains all aspects of the project using models, digital content, and virtual reality. The technical tour visited this tower and went on one of the public tours of the station construction site that ITS offers.

Remodelling Stuttgart

Stuttgart Hauptbahnhoff is a 16-platform terminal station. Its tracks from the south, north, and east converge into a complex 1.5km elongated station throat which approaches the station from the northeast. This has 255 switches and some grade separated junctions. The Stuttgart 21 project will replace this station with an underground eight-platform through station below the current station. Four tunnels have been constructed to connect the new station to the tracks from the north and east. One of these tunnels, the 9.5km Fiddler tunnel, takes tracks to a new station at Stuttgart airport. This is a high-speed line which is extended by a further 15km to Wendlingen where it will connect with the new highspeed line to Ulm.

The new station will have no connection to the track from the south which carries trains from Zurich and so when Stuttgart Hauptbahnhoff is abandoned, these trains will terminate at Vaihingen, 8km south west of the city centre. There are plans to build an 11km tunnel to allow trains from the south to reach the new Stuttgart station via the new airport station. However, this will not open until the early 2030s.

Information provided by ITS shows how through stations are more efficient than terminal stations within minimal conflicting moves and higher approach speeds. Thus an eight-platform through platform can replace a 16-platform terminal station. In addition, the journey time of trains passing through Stuttgart will be reduced by 10 minutes or so as they will no longer have to change direction at the terminal station.

As well as transforming the local rail network, Stuttgart 21 will dramatically change the city. Once the new station becomes operational, an 85-hectare,

2.2km swathe of land (half the size of London’s Regent Park) will be released for the city’s largest urban development project. This will provide parks, affordable housing, schools, sports facilities, and cultural institutions, as well as the new Mittnachtstrasse S-Bahn station.

Touring the new station

When the technical tour entered the station, the immediate impression was of a roof with no straight lines made up 28 chalice-shaped supports and 27 ‘light eyes.’ Of these, four are flat units 17.5-metre in diameter and the remainder are 21-metre diameter raised 4.3-metres high. These provide 4,750 sq metres of glazing made up of 3,915 multi-pane glazing units. These units, together with white walls, reduce the need for artificial lighting and are part of the station’s energy efficient design that does not rely on electricity for ventilation, heating, and basic lighting. It took three months to construct each chalice support which required more than 80 large-format formwork elements, 750 tonnes of concrete, and 350 tonnes of steel reinforcement.

At the time of our visit, the trackwork appeared to be complete, the platforms were substantially complete and

electrification conductor bars were being installed. The eight platforms are 447-metres long and will be accessed by 15 lifts and 28 escalators. Vibration resistant track fastenings were evident.

One thing apparently missing at the station were signals. This is because the core Stuttgart 21 lines will be ETCS signalled and all trains operating through it will be ETCS equipped.

Part of the tour took the group inside the 100-year-old Bonatzbau station building to see how it had been

internally gutted as well as the arrangements to preserve its striking façade. When work is complete, the building’s 160-metre-long hall will provide easy access to the new station below. It will also have two new levels with shops and facilities for travellers as well as a modern hotel.

S-Bhan

Stuttgart’s 215km suburban railway network, the S-Bhan, comprises 83 stations on seven lines. It serves the Stuttgart Region’s population

(Above) New Stuttgart station almost complete. (Left top) ‘Light eyes’ above the station.

(Left bottom) Aerial view of current station, light eyes above new station and Bonatzbau station building.

of 2.7 million and carries around 400,000 passengers per day. Its Stuttgart Hauptbahnhoff station is under the concourse at the end of a 2.6km tunnel which emerges just beyond the terminal station’s platforms.

As part of Stuttgart 21 a new station has been constructed at Mittnachtstrasse, 1.5km from the Hauptbahnhoff. This will serve the area of land that is to be reclaimed once the old station’s tracks have been abandoned, and is expected to have 20,000 passengers per day. The construction of this new S-Bahn station requires an extension of the S-Bahn tunnel under Stuttgart Hauptbahnhoff and a new railway bridge over the River Neckar.

This new route will increase the reliability of S-Bahn services as it will give them dedicated tracks through the city. Currently, the S-Bahn currently shares tracks here with regional trains which causes delays.

Ulm high speed line

A project linked to Stuttgart 21, but not part of it, was the construction of a 58km high speed railway between Ulm and Wendlingen where it will connect to a high-speed line constructed as part of the Stuttgart 21 project.

This line has eight tunnels totalling 27km in length bored through the difficult geology of the Swabian Jura mountains. The 85-metre-high Fistal viaduct is between two of these tunnels. This has two single track spans of 472 metres and 485 metres. This line has a maximum height of 750 metres above sea level and a maximum gradient of 1 in 32. It has a station at Merklingen, 24km from Ulm.

After this high-speed line was approved in 2007, construction started in 2010. The line opened in December 2022 when it reduced the journey time between Ulm and Stuttgart from 56 to 42 minutes.

When the Stuttgart to Wendlingen highspeed line becomes operational, this journey time will be further reduced to 27 minutes.

This line was constructed at a cost of €4 billion. As it is part of the Paris to Budapest Trans-European line. The European Union provided funding for 50% of the project’s planning phase and 10% of its construction costs.

Stuttgart Digital Node

Concerns about Stuttgart’s S-Bahn punctuality resulted in an S-Bhan European Train Control System (ETCS) study which was published in 2019. This concluded that ETCS and Automatic Train Operation (ATO) could reduce headways by around 20% in the congested S-Bahn core. It was also the impetus for the Stuttgart Digital Node project (Digitaler Knoten Stuttgart, DKS) as the S-Bhan core needed new signalling anyway and the new lines being built for Stuttgart 21. As a result, DKS became one of three areas pioneering ETCS in Germany, the others being Koln to Frankfurt and Munich to Hamburg.

When Stuttgart 21 lines are opened, the core services will be ETCS signalled and all trains operating through the new Stuttgart station will be ETCS equipped. Adjacent areas will have a signal overlay to accommodate freight traffic which is not yet fully ETCS equipped. As a result, there will be 125km of track carrying 1,700 ETCS signalled passenger trains a day.

This has required 333 vehicles to be retrofitted with ETCS in a programme that started in March 2022. Of these vehicles, 215 were S-Bahn trains for which, in 2021, Alstom secured a €130 million contract to install ETCS and ATO.

Initially, the programme requires ETCS only to be operational. From 2027 onwards, ATO operations will

commence to give consistent braking and acceleration profiles. This will be followed by the introduction of a Capacity and Traffic Management System which will continuously optimise operations using the precise positioning information provided by ETCS.

By 2030, it is envisaged that the entire region with its 500km of track with be ETCS signalled after 50 old interlocking systems have been replaced. By this time, it is also hoped to provide these lines with the Future Railway Mobile Communications System (FRMCS).

Cost and benefits

With the Stuttgart 21 initially planned to open in 2019 and costing almost three times its original estimate it is not surprising that press stories have described it as an “$11 billion rail disaster” and “Germany’s latest transport fiasco”. Project sponsor Deutsche Bahn considers that the reasons for the cost increase include:

» A sharp rise in construction inflation.

» A difficult global environment.

» The uniqueness of the project.

» Lack of competition due to weak tenderers response.

» Complex geological conditions.

No doubt there are other reasons. However, whether it is the complete failure that press reports suggest depends on the realisation of its benefits which such press reports rarely mention.

In the UK, the Edinburgh Tram and Crossrail projects also attracted much negative comment for being late and over budget, yet the benefits of these projects are now generally accepted.

It is to be hoped that once Stuttgart’s new railway network is operational, its benefits will be apparent to the city’s population and that they will be glad that they voted for it.

TRANSFORMS NETWORK RAIL STATIONS WITH STEP-FREE ACCESS

Stannah Lifts Services (Stannah) is managing a major accessibility upgrade at several South Western Railway (SWR) stations along the Wessex route, installing a total of 13 passenger lifts to date.

These upgrades are part of a broader initiative across Network Rail's Southern region, aimed at making stations accessible for all. Funded by the Department for Transport’s (DfT) £350 million ‘Access for All’ scheme, Network Rail is working in partnership with SWR and the London Borough of Merton Council, to deliver accessibility upgrades along the Wessex route.

This investment aims to create step-free access around Network Rail stations and involves the installation of lifts, footbridges, staircases, and other improvements.

The work

Stannah has been instrumental in these upgrades, working to improve accessibility with its lift solutions at Motspur Park, Barnes, Walton-on-Thames, Isleworth, and Stoneleigh currently underway.

The work Stannah does to improve accessibility in train stations across the UK is managed by its Major Projects division, which works on technically complex or long-period construction projects, typically in heritage sites or infrastructure.

Stannah provided multiple lift solutions in accordance with ‘Standard Specification for New and Upgraded Lifts’, supporting Network Rail in improving accessibility at stations across its routes. Built for durability and safety, the stainless-steel lift features black rubber bumper rails, offering a secure solution for both passengers and goods.

» Motspur: three two-stop, sixteen-person passenger lifts.

» Barnes: three two-stop passenger lifts.

» Walton on Thames: two passenger lifts.

» Isleworth: two passenger lifts.

» Stoneleigh: three passenger lifts.

The solution

Motspur Park station on the Wessex route, to the historic Waltonon-Thames and Isleworth stations first built in the 1800s, have all undergone a major transformation to improve step-free access.

Peter Williams, customer and commercial director for South Western Railway, said of the Isleworth official opening: “We’re very pleased to see these new lifts unveiled at Isleworth, which is in line with Hounslow London Borough Council’s ambition of making all of its stations step-free, and will make this station fully accessible for the very first time.

“We know just how big a difference these accessibility improvements make to customers and our local communities, which is why they’re a key part of our accessibility strategy.”

Results

The new Stannah lifts currently provide step-free access to five of the seven stations along the Wessex route, enabling local residents and commuters to use the railways with ease.

These new lifts add to the Network Rail lift maintenance contract, where Stannah take care of over 1,800 lifts and escalators at stations across the UK, part of its 100,000 strong lift service portfolio.

Stannah has been helping Network Rail make rail travel more inclusive and accessible for those with limited mobility or travelling with luggage and prams for more than a decade. Accessibility improvements like these are a crucial part in making London a welcoming city for everyone. By making stations easier to access with Stannah lifts, Network Rail and its partners are encouraging sustainable travel choices and enhancing the overall passenger experience.

Pete Ford, project manager, major projects division of Stannah Lift Services said: “It’s been a real pleasure working alongside Octavius on these important projects. It was a great team effort bringing them to life, and it’s incredibly rewarding to see how our combined work is contributing to a more inclusive and accessible rail network. We’re proud to support Network Rail in creating a better travel experience for everyone.

“Our renewed contract with Network Rail allows us to build on the excellence of our teams and processes, ensuring seamless travel for the thousands of passengers who rely on the network daily. We look forward to collaborating with Network Rail on future projects, delivering accessibility upgrades and ensuring inclusive travel for all passengers.”

THE EVOLUTION OF STATIONS Railway

Heighington Railway Station. The original platform can be seen here, which also shows a public convenience, station clock and LNER notice board. This was probably taken in the 1920s or 1930s. Unknown source.

Rail Engineer’s series of articles on the creation of the modern railway has so far covered motive power, permanent way, and signalling. Each of these physical assets are self-evidently essential for a railway system to function at all. Perhaps the promoters, developers, and funders of the first early railways gave less attention to the needs of their passengers in terms of the provision of what subsequently became known as stations. It certainly seems that way, judging by accounts of early railway travel.

Initially there was no thought given as to how to access the wagon, or better still, the carriage, with passengers having to clamber up from ground level as best they could. At a small station in Kent, planks of wood were offered for access to the carriage floor level. As for toilets, everyone had to make their own arrangements. To buy a

ticket, in most cases you would get it at the local pub. Waiting rooms, refreshment facilities, booking offices, station toilets, newspaper kiosks, and train information would come later. Eventually, of course, the full needs of the passenger, or customer, as is today’s preferred term, became recognised. More was needed than simply a seat on a train to get from A to B. Providing basic comforts could enhance the travelling experience and even lead to repeat custom. But progress towards this improved situation seems to have been slow.

Obviously, the foregoing observations apply largely to wayside and intermediate stations and not to the more considered and carefully designed major stations, such as Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the first great London termini, Euston and King’s Cross. But for the early lines, such as the Liverpool and Manchester, even the termini stations lacked some of those basic facilities which would later be the norm.

The first stations

Until recently, it was thought that the 1830-built Liverpool Road station in Manchester, on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the first ‘proper’ station. But recent heritage investigations at Heighington on the Stockton and Darlington Railway have shown that it was open from 1825 or 1827.

Once it was realised that stations could be an important part of the railway experience for passengers, various facilities began to be added to improve those stations already in existence or, in the case of new stations, to be thoughtfully incorporated into the original design. Certainly, this is what happened for major terminal or interchange stations which gave great opportunities for the railway architects to not only create impressive, imposing and aesthetically pleasing buildings as viewed externally, but also to make imaginative and efficient use of the spaces inside those buildings. Refreshment rooms for passengers appeared early on, the first possibly being in Birmingham at the Grand Junction Railway’s terminus, in 1837. Refreshment facilities were mostly for the use of passengers starting their journeys or changing trains, but there were some locations where long distance trains

would stop for 10 or 20 minutes to allow passengers on board to dismount and purchase a meal. There are apocryphal tales alleging when there had been insufficient time for the meal to be consumed, unscrupulous catering staff might recycle leftovers for further customers.

Even medium size stations for country towns such as Leamington Spa might have beautifully decorated and embellished refreshment rooms, spacious booking halls, and adequate lavatories. The larger stations, in addition to these enhancements, would also begin to boast left luggage rooms, a lost property office, and maybe a separate ladies’ waiting room. A good example

of architectural splendour being deployed to the ultimate is at Waterloo with its rebuilt station being opened in 1922. This was an opportunity to make dramatic improvements to a station that had evolved unsatisfactorily over many extensions and rebuildings. There was a large luggage hall and an enormous booking hall, with a floor of coloured glass tiles creating a feeling of airiness and spaciousness. Ladies’ toilets adjacent to their waiting rooms included a bath and dressing rooms. There were numerous refreshment facilities along and above the 700-feetlong and spaciously wide concourse, including a ladies’ cafe and the Surrey Dining Room, which could seat 150 guests and was also available to hire for private functions. Overall, this new Waterloo set a standard that was rarely matched again.

Initially, most railway companies saw the movement of goods as being a more reliable source of income than the transport of passengers. It soon became apparent that it was the other way around, but nevertheless it was recognised that operationally it was essential to have facilities for unloading and loading goods traffic at all but the very smallest stations.

The 1830-built Liverpool Road station in Manchester, on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.

As the station rebuild was drawing to a close, and as a memorial to their staff that died in the First World War, the LSWR commissioned the Victory Arch. Designed by J R Scott, its chief architect and made of Portland stone and bronze, it depicts War and Peace, with Britannia holding the torch of liberty above. Leading from Station Approach onto the concourse, the Victory Arch forms the main entrance to Waterloo.

For the major terminal and interchange stations, significant goods yards had to be constructed conveniently close to the passenger parts of the stations. Building of these passenger terminals, such as St. Pancras, King’s Cross, and Euston had already required massive areas of poorer housing to be purchased, residents evicted, and the areas cleared. The ensuing acquisition of even more swathes of land for development of the freight facilities caused another round of turmoil and social unrest.

Architectural styles

With so many lines being built, the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s must have been an exciting time for young aspiring architects and

engineers. Railway companies, anxious not to alienate their passengers with the wrong sort of building style, often favoured the Italianate or Gothic style rather than the contemporary Victorian. But there was a full spectrum of styles.

With the novelty of the steam train, there was a desire to calm passengers’ potential fears by presenting station ambiences that were as ordinary and familiar as possible in the rural environment, and impressive in the large towns and cities. This resulted in station styles ranging from small cottages, through to country manor houses, and even on to ducal palaces.

Care was often taken, particularly in rural or village locations, to design the station

to be sympathetic to the local vernacular architecture. Wateringbury in Kent, (1844), is a classic example, along with its adjacent station master’s house. Brocklesbury in Lincolnshire, (1848), is near to the country seat of the Earl of Yarborough, who was Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, so why not design a station building to match the house?

There are plenty of urban or semi-urban examples as well. Cupar in Fife (1847) has a striking station building done in the Italianate style. Windsor and Eton Riverside (1857) and Hampton Court (1849) stations were made to reflect their royal companion buildings not very far away. Bath station as well as the associated retaining walls, tunnels, bridges, and viaducts over the River Avon were all carefully specified by Brunel in Bath stone.

Often, great attention was paid to minute details of decoration, rather than simply providing utilitarian buildings. An attractive example is the coloured sculptures on the capitals of the roof support columns at Great Malvern (1862).

Major stations

Country and small-town stations were the architect’s preserve, but providing much larger stations suitable for cities or major interchanges required the combined expertise of engineers and architects. More was needed than aesthetically pleasing buildings. Large span train sheds and often multiple level structures had to be well designed structures. But equal attention was given to architectural detail as well as to engineering considerations. They have stood the test of time and today we can still appreciate such impressive buildings as St. Pancras, Newcastle Central, Edinburgh Waverley, Manchester Victoria, Paddington, and many others.

It is rightfully claimed that Great Britain gave birth to the railway, but that expertise soon spread internationally. So, there are many magnificent large station buildings worldwide.

Just to mention a few: Milan Central, Gare du Nord, Gare de Lyon, Grand Central in New York, Leipzig, Delhi Junction, Frankfurt, Dresden.

Early noted engineers and architects were Joseph Locke, Robert Stephenson, Philip Hardwick, Lewis Cubitt, John Dobson, Isambard Brunel, and John Fowler, some of whom made significant contributions to railway developments abroad.

Sadly, hundreds of former stations became disused through being sited on a closed line or by becoming uneconomic with insufficient passenger numbers. In the former case, many have had a new lease of life by, for example, conversion to residential properties or finding use as a community facility. Closed stations on lines that are still operational are obviously less likely to find such suitable reuse, but many remain because they are listed buildings of specific architectural merit. In this case, there can occasionally be a happy outcome, as with the recent reopening of the line from Crediton to Okehampton.

Rivalries

During the railway mania of the 1830s and 1840s, the rivalry between railway companies competing for business over similar routes is well known, leading to the creation of many duplicated lines. But stations in themselves could be the cause of many disputes with consequent inefficiencies and confusion for passengers. A simple example of this behaviour is the case of Liverpool Exchange station, opened in 1850. It was owned jointly by the Lancashire & Yorkshire (LYR) and the East Lancashire Railways (ELR) which, as with most things, were unable to agree on arrangements for sharing this facility. So, they provided two of everything –booking offices, waiting rooms, refreshment rooms and even names! The LYR called the station Exchange, but for the

ELR it was Tithebarn Street. The problem was resolved when the companies amalgamated in 1859.

A more serious example of competitiveness came with the evolution of London’s Victoria station. The original station built by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway was constructed on the western side of the site. Initially, three other companies, primarily the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, were keen to use the site but there was insufficient capacity. They were able to obtain Parliamentary permission for a second station to the east of the first station, and it was operated as a completely independent enterprise. This was separated from the ‘Brighton’ station by a boundary party wall for its whole length.

Continental. Date: circa 1905.

Bricklayers Arms station, London at its opening in May 1844 The South-Eastern Railway. Illustration for The Illustrated London News, 4 May 1844.

For passengers new to Victoria, this would have caused plenty of confusion as they would not have been aware which of the two stations served their destination. It was not until after the 1923 Grouping that the newly formed Southern Railway made passageways through the party wall and unified Victoria station.

There must have been many other cases of unnecessary problems caused by intercompany rivalry, but perhaps one of the most serious, which led to ongoing operational difficulties almost up to the present day, is that of London Bridge. It is a complicated story.

The first station at this site was a very makeshift affair constructed by the London and Greenwich Railway as the terminus for their new line at the end of the impressive 851-arch viaduct, the land acquisition for which, and the construction of, is a story in itself, bringing the route into London from Deptford and Bermondsey.

The London and Croydon Railway (L&C) had acquired Parliamentary authority for proposals to connect with the London and Greenwich (L&G). It wanted to make use of the first mile or two of the viaduct before forking southwards on its route to Croydon. However, it needed its own station and negotiated with the L&G to obtain a parcel of land for this.

The L&G, with the intention of keeping the L&C forever constrained by the use of its viaduct, granted the L&C a site to the north of its own station. Although the station that the L&C built was more imposing than the original L&G one, the efficient operation of its services was compromised by the need for all its trains to cross the other company’s trains to reach their own route. To alleviate this problem, the L&C eventually had to abandon its part of London Bridge station and construct its own new station at Bricklayers Arms to the south-west along with a one-and-a-quarter mile new line to access it. In 1844, this became the original London terminus of the South Eastern and the L&C Railways.

Bricklayers Arms was used for passengers until 1852 when a train derailed and demolished a column supporting part of the roof. After that it was turned into a heavily used freight depot, though for a while Queen Victoria continued to find it conveniently close to Buckingham Palace for her trips to Brighton. With the demise of Bricklayers Arms, the South Eastern reverted to London Bridge, building itself a completely new station, but with a high wall screening it from the London, Brighton and South Coast’s area. This was the final stage of the making of the operational difficulties caused by the inter-company rivalry, which then persisted for well over a century. Finally, London Bridge has only very recently become an impressive interchange as a result of a sweeping rationalisation and refurbishment of the entire site. It is now a pleasant environment with good passenger information, a spacious lower-level concourse with good access to all platforms, and new retail outlets.

London’s termini

Many books have covered the origin and subsequent history of London’s major terminal stations in great detail. Here, it is proposed only to draw out one or two interesting and/or common features.

First, a Royal Commission was set up and reported in 1846 to define the geographical limitations to which any railway would be allowed to penetrate into the built-up area. Several companies aspired to reach much closer to the West End and the City than they were, in fact, able to. Eventually, somehow the South Eastern and the London, Brighton and South Coast crossed the Thames and established themselves at Victoria, Charing Cross and Cannon Street in 1860, 1864, and 1866 respectively. Earlier, the London & Birmingham, the Great Northern, and the Great Western had to be satisfied with remaining north of Euston Road, or New Road, as it was then. However, all three companies were able to build magnificent stations to display their importance. The designers were Lewis Cubitt for King’s Cross, Philip Hardwick for Euston, and Brunel for Paddington. Each station had very individual styles, but all had the common feature of separate arrival and departure platforms and a wide central cab road. Also, despite the massive areas of destruction and clearance needed to create them, the volume of traffic expected had been seriously underestimated and all had further extensions built to give adequate capacity.

In Euston’s case, this was particularly unfortunate for its future. A magnificent Great Hall, with a shareholders’ room above, had been positioned to the west of the first platforms. More platforms were later provided to the west of the Great Hall and the only other area for increasing capacity was to the north of the Great Hall, making platforms there necessarily short. These factors were no doubt contributory to the decision of British Railways to build a completely new station in the 1960s. The unsuccessful fight to preserve or relocate the Doric arch fronting the station and its attendant lodges is well known. Less well known is the loss of the Great Hall.

It was originally proposed that Paddington would be sited alongside Euston on its western boundary. This was logical as the obvious ways out of London for both companies’ routes were, for the first mile or two, alongside each other. Had this taken place, there would have been no room at all for Euston to expand, but the Great Western instead chose the Paddington site, which proved ideal in many respects. It was the first of the great terminal stations to make the most of both its location and the available space.

All three companies had to establish temporary termini further out of London before acquiring and developing their prime permanent locations: Great Northern at Maiden Lane, London & Birmingham at Camden, and Great Western at Bishop’s Bridge.

Innovation and evolution

Over the past 30 years many ‘Parkway’ stations have been devised, usually as completely new stations but sometimes as adaptations of existing ones. This initiative has boosted rail usage and benefited many local communities.

While many stations have been added to or adapted over the years according to changes in ownership, traffic patterns,

1849.

1906.

(Above) After closing in 1966 Curzon Street station will be reinvented as an iconic landmark, with high speed trains driving the city forward.

(Right top) Curzon Street Station - northern elevation facing the Curzon Promenade.

(Right bottom) Exterior of the Old Curzon Street Station in Birmingham.

new route proposals, or simply for economic reasons, there have been some great recent examples of the innovative use of very historic stations. The obvious examples are those catering to the Channel Tunnel traffic. The awardwinning design by Nicholas Grimshaw to provide the Eurostar platforms and terminal facilities at the western edge of Waterloo in 1994 was superb. This was followed, after these platforms had lain fallow for around 11 years, by their imaginative development to provide five additional platforms for the South Western services, creating significant extra capacity and flexibility of operation at Waterloo.

The repurposing of St. Pancras to allow Eurostar trains to relocate there in 2007 must be one of the most inspiring stories in the history of stations. Building a new terminal for the East Midlands services to the north, extending the existing platforms to full Eurostar train length with a stylish modern roof, refurbishing the original 1868 roof and buildings to a very high standard, and utilising the former under-station vaults (the Burton beer delivery area) for retail outlets, passenger departure lounge ,and arrival area, showed imagination of the highest order.

Blackfriars new station,

located on its bridge across the Thames, is a clear display of a whole new suite of train services. The first railway entrepreneurs wanted to bring their services to the very centre of London, but planning regulations prevented them. Now, with the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink intersecting at Faringdon, a situation close to that aspiration has been achieved.

Curzon Street, Birmingham, was where the Grand Junction and the London & Birmingham Railways met in 1848. The main entrance building, with Grade I listed status, has been protected for many years. With the arrival of HS2 at this location, it will be sensitively incorporated into those new surroundings, possibly as a museum, and bringing the stations' story full circle.

A new era of passenger-focused communication

Back in December 2024, the Smarter Information, Smarter Journeys Programme (SISJ), jointly led by Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and Network Rail announced the launch of a new range of videos which will make it easier for passengers to plan their journeys. The newly launched Visual Disruption Maps are short videos which give travellers clear information on planned changes to train services and the alternative routes which are available for them to complete their journey.

The videos will be used in stations, on National Rail Enquiries and on the social media accounts of Network Rail, RDG, and Train Operating Companies (TOCs), and include subtitles as well as British Sign Language (BSL) overlay to make them more accessible. Rail Engineer caught up with RDG Chief Delivery Officer Nicole Jennings to find out more.

Thanks for joining us, Nicole. To begin, could you give us a brief overview of the Visual Disruption maps? How do they work and what drove their development?

We know across our industry that our customers value reliability and punctuality, and as an industry we work hard to keep all our services running to schedule, but delays and cancellations can happen for many reasons including planned issues such as engineering works, or other more unpredictable issues such as extreme weather.

Visual Disruption Maps help us to give passengers clear guidance on alternative routes and connections in the case of disruption, and attempt to translate what can be quite complex information into a clear and simple message. Using video makes this easier to understand.

We've ensured that this information is available to all by keeping accessibility at the forefront and we’ve worked with industry accessibility groups to ensure that the videos are fully accessible through the use of BSL and subtitles.

Since December 2024, we’ve produced nearly 200 of the videos to help passengers when their journeys have been affected by engineering works or diversionary works that we're aware of and to help them re-plan their journey. Examples include when

Paddington trains were diverted to Euston so that improvements could be made on the Great Western Main Line, and for large-scale events like the Carabao Cup Final, where planned engineering works were taking place.

Where are the videos made and who produces the content? How long does the whole process take?

The videos are produced at the National Rail Communications Centre (NRCC) in Doncaster and it's quite a unique experience to watch them being put together.

The NRCC already provides disruption information to places like National Rail Enquiries, so we felt they were well placed to create our videos. To ensure consistency, we set up a dedicated studio with a new team, and the studio provides green screen technology, audio, and all that type of thing. The creation of the videos really is a cross-industry collaboration on a day-today basis between the NRCC, the relevant TOC, and Network

Rail. Both the TOCs and Network Rail are engaged in checking scripts and inspecting the video previews when they are produced.

As mentioned, we're currently concentrating on planned disruption videos. These are created by the video production teams using a checklist which gives guidance on things like ensuring that the presenter is speaking at an appropriate pace to allow time for the BSL finger spelling. It requires pauses between sections to aid comprehension and uses closed captions, which can be turned off if people don't want them. As these videos are designed for a wide audience, we need to accommodate different needs and different preferences. We generally have a lot of lead time with these planned disruption videos. There’s no rush because we’ll know about the planned works many weeks in advance, sometimes months.

We're looking to begin producing videos for unplanned (on the day) disruption this summer and we’re aiming towards a target of 30 minutes between being made aware of the disruption and getting that information out to customers. We know that customers generally start to become dissatisfied after around 15 minutes of disruption, so it's really important that we get the videos out as quickly as possible. The challenge will be ensuring that we’re providing accurate information and making it available to everyone in a very tight timeframe.

An initial rollout took place last year - what lessons were learned during that phase, and how did they shape the final videos?

The first set of videos covered the Christmas 2024 engineering works. They were first made live in December 2024, but we filmed them several weeks before that. Since the launch back in December, nearly 200 videos have gone live and we have a further 60 videos for planned disruption currently in production.

During the rollout last December, we got a sense of what was working and what could be improved upon, and since then we've continually enhanced the way we produce the videos. We do know that just under 95% of the users during the trial found the videos useful. Eighty-one percent felt more informed about the disruption, and 72% said they would use the videos if they were made available. So, although we’ve continually made

improvements as we've gone along, we can say that the original trial was very, very successful.

How are you assessing the impact of the videos and their popularity with customers?

At the end of every video, customers are given the opportunity to complete a survey, as well as quarterly customer surveys. These surveys have shown us that customers appreciate how the videos are helping them at times of disruption, that the language used is clear, and that they trust the information presented.

Customers have also noted that they like how the videos “help to cut through the confusion in times of disruption” and that “the visual nature and having a presenter provides a human face and human touch”.

Having someone to connect to visually enables users to connect with the content and makes them more likely to trust what they're being told. It just goes to show that the way in which a message is communicated is just as important as the information being shared.

The project requires close collaboration across the industry. Did you come up against particular challenges in coordinating so many organisations?

You can't complete this kind of project on your own - you have to collaborate across the industry.

This is why the SISJ programme was best placed to take on the challenge of developing the national proposition, which this now is. I think it's fair to say that everyone across the industry wants to improve the information that is out there and available to customers.

That desire to improve communications to customers drove much of the coordination across the project. We also had a lot of the infrastructure already in place. For instance, the NRCC was well placed to produce the videos as it already disseminates disruption information, both planned and unplanned.

We used the programme’s collaborative way of working, building on the infrastructure already in place to launch the videos.

Looking ahead, how do you see this project evolving?

We're always looking at how technology can help us to improve the information our customers receive. We are looking at incorporating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly for the unplanned disruption videos we’re currently working on. It's challenging to produce such videos on a tight timeframe while also incorporating BSL. There is a level of accuracy that we must meet and it’s important to get that right. AI is one of the options we’re investigating, but it’s important to ensure that it works properly and it won’t be used in any of the videos released this summer. It's very much in the research stage, where we are conducting customer engagement.

As an industry, we know that reliability and functionality are critically important, but we also accept that the network is not immune to issues which can disrupt travel plans. When these issues arise, we're absolutely committed to getting critical information to customers as quickly as we possibly can, in a user-friendly manner. Customers will see an increasing number of these videos in future, making planning their journeys simpler, and planning around expected and unexpected delays less stressful.

Accelerating OLE isolations:

A new era for electrified railways

Trackside working on electrified railways demands meticulous isolation procedures – these are vital, yet invariably time-consuming. Siemens Mobility, however, is piloting a new technology that promises to streamline the isolation process, affording trackside teams significantly more time to carry out essential works during possessions.

The Siemens Remote Securing solution has been designed to satisfy the need for Network Rail to comply with Electricity at Work Regulations (EaWR) which require an isolation be secured. This translates to an isolation being in the control of a Nominated Person (NP) trackside, rather than an Electrical Control Operator (ECO) in a distant control room. Remote Securing prevents an ECO or remote substation maintenance staff inadvertently energising an electrical section, putting the safety of the operatives in the hands of those closest to them.

The impact of isolation time on productivity

Network Rail takes more than 35,000 isolations per year, approximately two thirds of which are on 25kV Overhead Line Equipment (OLE), with the remaining third on the direct current (DC) third rail network. The OLE isolations, which are the subject of this feature, take on average 48 minutes according to a recent Network Rail electrical safety challenge statement.

On short overnight possessions, this results in a significant loss of productivity.

The OLE isolations are taken by an NP in the vicinity of the trackside work site. They communicate with the ECO who remotely operates and monitors the electrical switchgear. The switchgear used to isolate a section of track can be distributed across several kilometres of track.

This makes it difficult to comply with the EaWR which define an isolation as “the disconnection and separation of the electrical equipment from every source of electrical energy in such a way that this disconnection and separation is secure.” For legacy infrastructure, Network Rail has therefore allowed derogation from the regulations and does not apply inhibits to switchgear under isolation.

In CP5, Network Rail introduced the Supplementary Isolation Process (SIP) for new OLE electrification which ensured compliance with the EaWR. SIP increases isolation time, as it requires the NP to manually apply a padlock to every item of switchgear.

Trialling a safe and fast way to do isolations

In order to address this challenge, Siemens Mobility has been collaborating with Network Rail to define and develop the Remote Securing Trapped Key solution since 2015. Siemens created and demonstrated a proof of concept in 2020 and, in March this year, has deployed the system onto the Shotts Line in Scotland for operational trial.

This was the UK’s first deployment of a remote securing solution, enabling the NP to lock all associated switchgear in a safe position with a single key via the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, eliminating the need for multiple padlocks. This works in the following way:

» When the isolation is requested, the ECO will isolate the section of track by setting switches in the correct position ready for the planned work.

» The ECO instructs the system to commence the Remote Securing sequence at which point the substation Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) checks the status of all relevant switchgear and sends commands to inhibit each device – either through Disconnect Locking Relays or software inhibits. The RTU does this for the devices within its substation as well as the devices at the opposite end of the isolated section via the associated RTU.

» At this point, the NP can then remove the key from the Traction Isolation Control Key (TICK) box which prevents the switchgear inhibits from being removed, securing the isolation. Multiple TICK boxes can be deployed on an electrical section (such as at substations or access points) and keys can be removed from any of them.

» The ECO then confirms to the NP that the isolation has been secured and authorises issue of a Form B to the NP who then tests that the line is not energised and arranges for earths to be placed before issuing Form Cs.

DAVID SHIRRES

When the isolation is no longer required, earths have been removed, and Form Cs returned, the NP(s) will re-insert the key(s) which removes the inhibits and allows the ECO to energise the OLE. Up until this point, the ability to operate switchgear, either locally or from the Electrical Control Room (ECR), has been removed.

This quick process thus gives the NP control of the isolated switchgear and disconnectors that both ensures compliance with EaWR and offers significant productivity benefits by reducing the time to apply and remove isolations.

The Shotts line trial by Network Rail maintainers has progressed well and Siemens Mobility is now working with Network Rail to make refinements to the solution based on feedback. As a result of its success, all new electrification in Scotland is being procured with the Trapped Key Remote Securing Solution.

This new technology will enable Network Rail to deliver far more work than it would typically have been able to during possessions and will help boost productivity in the future. All while returning to within the ORR mandated EaWR compliance.

Further enhancements - mobile apps and configurable keys

Siemens Mobility has also been working on alternative Remote Securing solutions to provide different functionality for different scenarios. One such solution is an app-based eKey which has been demonstrated to provide the same level of robust securing as the Trapped Key option.

This solution uses the transfer of electronic tokens between the ECR and NP to secure the isolation and can be deployed as an alternative or in addition to the physical Trapped Key solution. It also allows the NP to view the live status of Substation and Trackside devices to see the progress of the isolation while it is being applied.

Another variant of Remote Securing is under development with GWML where the securing logic is located in the ECR’s Master Station. This allows the Trapped Keys to be configurable so that they can be used for securing different sections of track on different shifts. Initial design has also begun for a solution tailored towards the isolation of depots as well as other Rail environments outside of Network Rail infrastructure.

Unlocking greater possession efficiency

The successful trial in Scotland has the potential to unlock huge time savings and higher possession productivity on projects across the rail network. Across the UK, the time savings on OLE railway could be up to 18,000 hours per year. Thus, remote securing is a good example of the safety and efficiency benefits from considering the whole possession process and applying modern technology to it.

RBX1 Sekisui FFU

Level Crossing Surface System

There are approximately 6,000 level crossings in Britain, of which 2,059 are User-Worked Crossings (UWCs), meaning that they are manually operated by drivers and pedestrians with no signalman or crossing keeper involved. These UWCs crossings include ‘occupation’ crossings, typically for vehicles, plus footpath crossings.

UWCs are usually found on private roads or small country roads. Such private crossings were installed by the railways when they were built, for the benefit of farmers and individuals whose land or access to homes was divided by the railway. Over the course of time these crossings have presented railway operators with several challenges.

The first and most obvious challenge relates to safety. Around nine people are killed in level crossing accidents each year, mainly pedestrians and vehicle users. Incidents on UWCs are more frequent than on other types of crossing, when taking account of the relative frequency of usage. Some major contributing factors to this increased risk include greater potential for user error, lack of awareness, and potential for misuse.

The second major challenge posed by these crossings is maintenance. While some crossings traditionally featured gravel or tarmac surfaces, and others steel-framed concrete (Bomac) panels, a high percentage are of timber construction. With some parts of Britain averaging over 4,000mm of rainfall annually, our damp climate can promote rotting and deterioration of woodwork. Coupled with regular

usage by heavy farm vehicles, this may result in crossing surfaces becoming damaged or unsafe and requiring regular maintenance or replacement. Moreover, since creosote was banned due to its toxicity, timber crossing surfaces can no longer be treated to extend their lifespan.

A solution

These were challenges that Network Rail’s Ross Briddon was seeking a solution for. Ross is the route engineer for Network Rail’s busy Sussex and Kent routes in the south of England (Southern Region). Since 2014, Ross has experimented with the use of Network Rail-approved Sekisui Fibre-reinforced Foamed Urethane (FFU) sleepers and longitudinal bearers on bridges on this route. These were installed as part of a programme of replacing life-expired timber assets and the outcome had been most impressive. FFU looks and behaves similarly to hardwood, yet is non-porous, doesn’t rot or need treating, and has a lifespan greater than 50 years.

Ross was made aware that Sekisui had also produced FFU level crossing surfaces in Japan for many years, and in more recent years had trialled them successfully in Europe at a rural location in Austria. Working with his contacts at Sekisui in the UK and his colleagues from Network Rail Technical Authority, Ross opted to become a sponsor to enable the FFU level crossing surface to undergo trials in Britain. The locations selected for the trials, starting in 2022, were Forge Farm Level Crossing in Sussex and Snargate Level Crossing in Kent.

Synthetic Sleeper

Simply working & sustainable

SUSTAINABILITY

State of the Art

SEKISUI CHEMICAL GROUP : Enhancing Lives, Preserving the Planet. At Sekisui, we’re dedicated to advancing the quality of life worldwide while championing the protection of our planet.

The material to be used was FFU74, the same as already used on Sekisui’s sleepers and bearers on more than 150 Network Rail bridges. Baker Hicks Consulting was employed by Sekisui to assist with the development and design of the trial. FFU74 has a density of 740 kg/m³ (similar to hardwood), a Young modulus E value of 6,000 MPa, a bending modulus of 810 kN/cm², and an impact bending resistance of 41 J/cm².

A proposal was evaluated against Network Rail level crossing and UK highways standards. The report aimed to determine a figure for ‘HB Loading’ for FFU74. HB Loading simulates the impact of heavy loads on bridge structures and is modelled as a four-axle vehicle with four wheels on each axle. The number of HB units indicates the load intensity and varies based on road type. Each HB unit represents 10kN (kilonewtons) per axle. Motorways and trunk roads require 45 HB units, principal roads require 37.5 HB units, and other public roads require 30 HB units. Modelling determined that FFU74 was suitable for 30 units of HB loading (‘other public roads’) which was in line with the aspiration to supply an FFU replacement alternative for Network Rail’s hardwood on lower category level crossings.

Prior to the two trial sites being installed, bending stresses and deflection were also evaluated using modelling by Baker Hicks. Finally, as part of the development and design of the trial, a skid resistance evaluation was carried out by Tiflex in Cornwall. The FFU74 was etched to a depth of 5mm with an anti-slip textured surface using multiple squares arranged in a grid patternthis was found to be the most effective design type for skid prevention. When measured using a portable skid resistance tester (as described in the Department of Transport’s Road Note 27) this gave a skid resistance value of 84 for Dry Skid Resistance and 70 for Wet Skid Resistance. These results were much higher than the minimum required skid resistance value of ≥58 (or 52 following a 15-year service life).

In summary, the feasibility study managed to convincingly demonstrate that 75mm-thick FFU74 is an adequate material for timber level crossing replacements, whether in combination with timber or concrete sleepers beneath the crossing surface.

(Inset) Before installation. (Main) RBX1 installed.

Resounding success

Following three years of trials on Kent and Sussex routes, the FFU level crossing surface system, by now dubbed ‘RBX1’, had proved to be a resounding success. Despite extensive and heavy use by both road and rail traffic, and with exposure to varying extremes of weather and temperature, the boards demonstrated almost no sign of wear and tear or degradation, looking as good as they did when new.

The day eventually came in June 2025 when Ross Briddon received the good news which he had been waiting so long to hear. Jamie Wilkes, principal engineer for Composites at Network Rail Technical Authority in Milton Keynes, would be issuing full product acceptance for RBX1. It would now be available for use across Britain’s rail network.

RBX1 boards will be made at Sekisui’s Netherlands factory. Bottomley Site Services Ltd (BSSL), Sekisui’s Network Railapproved fabrication partner, will add the etched anti-slip surfacing and carry out painting and fabrication according to clients’ requirements.

RBX1 will be available to customers in kit form, and they will only need to order the quantities of each component required for the project.

To allow prices to remain as low as possible, and due to the finishing of the product being carried out by BSSL, orders will be placed directly with them. BSSL also offers design and construction services should this be required by the client.

In summary, Sekisui’s RBX1 Level Crossing Surface System provides many benefits. It has a 50+ year lifespan, is non-porous, and does not rot or need treating. The product offers thermal resistance from -65 to +50°C, oil and chemical resistance, UV (light) resistance, and is fully recyclable.

And most importantly, RBX1 can be installed and maintained without the need for heavy lifting equipment, resulting in reduced maintenance costs for inspection of the rail foot, and also for rail replacement and tamping.

Connecting the UK rail industry for over 28 years.

Rail Live, the UK’s largest outdoor rail event, returned to Porterbrook’s Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre (LMIRC) on 19-20 June. With almost 300 exhibitors on site, more than 7,000 visitors attended the two-day exhibition, eager to cast their eyes on the most up-todate equipment and hear the latest from industry experts.

Rail Live is aways a huge occasion – the vast space of the LMRIC packed full of plant, equipment, and vehicles of all shape and sizes. Despite taking place over two days, it’s difficult to pack everything in, but wearing a child’s-size high-vis jacket he’d mistakenly picked up at the entrance, this writer attempted to make the most of it.

Exploring the site

With every step taken across the bustling showground there was something new to catch the eye. From industry giants to smaller specialist firms, exhibitors from across the sector came out in force, showcasing their latest innovations and solutions.

Hitachi Rail’s stand showcased how the company is enabling a more resilient and efficient railway by developing axle counter architecture to reduce service disruption, improve asset performance, and simplify maintenance.

Visitors to Hitachi's stand could discover its latest innovations in trackside and on-board technology, learn how it is delivering AIenabled safety, and explore its collaborative solutions to improving passenger experience and network efficiency.

Siemens Mobility combined the digital world with the real world, giving a real sense of what it could do across all of the railway’s systems.

It showcased its Connected Drivers Advisory System along with its Adaptive ETCS and used the opportunity to launch its new Rail Charging Converter (RCC), which has been in development for several months at LMRIC.

Special guests at the launch included Catherine Atkinson MP, Rob Morris, joint-CEO for Siemens Mobility UK, and Mary Grant, CEO at Porterbrook. Siemens claims the RCC can be installed at locations in as little as 18 months and connected to the local power grid.

Regular attendees to Rail Live may have spotted an updated layout, reflecting Porterbrook’s ongoing investment in the LMRIC – notably the construction of a new 3.5km electrified test loop.

Visitors to Porterbrook’s marquee were able to experience the transformation for themselves through virtual reality (VR), stepping into a simulated cab to get a driver’s view of what it will be like to operate trains on the UK’s only continuous test track.

Porterbrook Chief Operating Officer Ben Ackroyd outlined how Long Marston is set to become a key asset in supporting the rollout of future rolling stock and explained how

environmental enhancement is also part of the company’s plans.

The environment and sustainability were also major themes for British Steel which was eager to discuss how it is helping customers meet their environmental targets. The firm demonstrated products including Zinoco, a zinc-rich alloy which extends the life of the rail in corrosive conditions. Also on display were British Steel’s recyclable steel sleepers which, the company says, improve track stability and benefit from a stackable, lightweight design.

Sticking to the eco-friendly theme, Network Rail had a dedicated stand at Rail Live’s Sustainability Zone and attendees could explore this aspect of its work on a guided biodiversity walk led by Dr Neil Strong, Network Rail’s biodiversity strategy manager.

The area also highlighted Network Rail’s ‘Getting Everyone Home Safe Every Day’ initiative and displayed a selection of its electric road vehicles.

The organisation’s ‘OffTrack’ stand hosted teams from various departments of the organisation including Commercial & Procurement, Product Acceptance, Standards Management, Electrical Safety Delivery, Possession Optimisation, and more. The site also included engineering innovations such as bespoke air surveying equipment, as well as the team behind the pioneering Lift in a Box.

Network Rail’s presence was split across the site. Its ‘OnTrack’ Village featured one of its Mobile Maintenance Trains (MMT – discussed later) and a mobile wind turbine, along with displays from teams involved in track renewals and rail freight.

Laing O’Rourke, Network Rail’s partner in this project, was keen to show off these modular, prefabricated lift shafts, doing so using VR technology. The structure is designed for use with multiple footbridges, bringing accessibility options to almost

any station. Standing at just over 10 metres, it contains a Kone Monospace 700 lift and can be delivered to site on the trailer bed of a delivery vehicle.

The modular lift is being utilised as part of Network Rail’s Access for All programme which aims to provide accessible routes to and between platforms to disabled passengers and those with mobility restrictions. It was recently installed at the Network Rail test track in Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, where it was removed from the trailer bed of the delivery vehicle and installed fully upright in 26 minutes.

Attendees waiting to try out the Laing O’Rourke’s VR experience could while away the time putting balls on the company’s miniature crazy golf course, a feature which proved almost as popular as its main attraction.

Just like last year, the 2025 event was blessed with very good weather. Thankfully, this year your writer had remembered to pack the suncream, though he had forgotten a sun hat and one was generously provided by the kind staff manning the SPL Powerlines stand.

The SPL team was on hand to discuss its services and showcase a selection of cuttingedge plant and technology, including the Zeck Wiring Unit it recently used on the East Kilbride Enhancement project, as reported in Issue 214 (MayJune 2025).

Rolling stock

2025 didn’t disappoint when it came to rolling stock, with the usual assortment of locomotives old and new on display. Visitors were welcomed to the event

by the sight of the ‘Standard Shunting Tank Locomotive’ No. 47383, now under the care of Severn Valley Railway (SVR).

Entering service in October 1926 with London Midland and Scottish Railway, No. 47383 was one of a number of such engines used on shunting duties and to transfer freight trains to many parts of London. The engines were also used to power suburban passenger trains from Broad Street terminus to the ‘Northern Heights’.

Withdrawn from service in late 1966, British Railways allocated the locomotive to Westhouses depot, where it was a spare engine for four other ‘Jinties’, soldiering on through the summer of 1967. It last steamed in 2002 and was placed on display at SVR’s Engine House from 2008 until 2024, when it was put into store at Kidderminster.

Standing proudly on a flatbed trailer, close to the exhibition’s entrance, No. 47383 served as a reminder of the rail industry’s proud heritage – a fitting tribute in Rail’s 200th anniversary year. It was brought to the site by heavy haulage specialist Allelys.

A Class 93 tri-mode locomotive (93007) was also on display, courtesy of Rail Operations Group and Stadler. Constructed in Spain, the Class 93 can run off the 25kV AC overhead system, rated at 5,360hp. It also has a 12-cylinder Caterpillar C32 diesel engine, rated at 1,205hp, and two LTO (lithium titanium- oxide) batteries.

Last year’s event was marked by the appearance of 93001 which undertook its first main line solo run on 28 May 2024 and saw further testing throughout July on the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Carlisle. With the results of that testing analysed 93002-010 are now being shipped to the UK to allow Rail Operations Group driver training.

Once again, visitors were welcomed aboard one of Network Rail’s Mobile Maintenance Trains (MMT), mentioned earlier. The vehicle provides a ‘workshop on wheels’ for engineers and track workers.

Each Robel-built MMT functions as a self-contained engineering hub. Onboard is a fully equipped workshop, twin two-tonne cranes,

multiple power outlets, and a comprehensive inventory of tools and materials – plus welfare facilities, including a kitchen and toilet.

Its defining feature is a spacious, extendable work platform that lowers to track level, creating a sheltered, floodlit environment protected from passing trains. Within this secure workspace, engineers can carry out both static and rolling repairs with minimal disruption to services. It’s only when stepping inside one of these units that the full ingenuity of the design becomes clear. Also making a return in 2025 was Porterbrook’s HydroFLEX –the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train designed for the mainline. Built and tested at the LMRIC, the project began in 2018 with a Class 319 train converted to run on hydrogen and battery power. The original HydroFLEX train was developed in partnership with the University of Birmingham, with grant funding from Innovate UK.

The train carries up to 277kg of hydrogen in 36 high-pressure tanks. This is fed into fuel cells, which generate electricity by

combining hydrogen with oxygen from the air. In recent years, the innovative unit has notched up several key milestones, including reaching speeds of over 90mph during mainline testing and successfully climbing Lickey Incline – the steepest gradient on the UK network. It also became the first British train to travel through a tunnel using only hydrogen power.

In 2025, Hydro-Flex boasted a brand-new livery to celebrate Railway 200 and visitors onboard heard from the Porterbrook team who have worked on the development and testing of the train.

Food for thought

This year, Rail Live boasted three stages for discussion and engagement: the Policy & Leadership Theatre; the Engineering Theatre; and the Safety Theatre.

The Policy & Leadership Theatre covered themes including the priorities of the government, the future of open access, accessibility, and freight operations.

Among the discussions on day one, the opening session, chaired by Daisy Chapman-Chamberlain, specification manager at Transport for the North, focussed on how the railway is attracting a young and diverse workforce in the face of the skills crisis, and was targeted at business leaders across the industry.

Isabella Lawson, Wales & Western manager at RIA, then led a panel on how Wales, Scotland and the English regions will fit into the new centralised system led by Great British Railways and how they will deliver their strategies.

In the afternoon, Lucy Prior MBE, strategic growth director at The Mental Wealth Company, chaired a debate on the trade off between cost and sustainability, asking how track and vehicle build can be designed and delivered as sustainably as possible.

The first day’s proceedings were closed by a discussion with Alex Hynes, director general of Rail Services at the Department for Transport, about what GBR could learn from the partnership, cooperation and operation of the ScotRail Alliance.

On day two, Dickon Ross, editor of Rail Magazine chatted with Network Rail Chief Executive Andrew Haines about rail reform and how the long-term future of the railway can be secured, as well as opportunities for growth and success. Lord Peter Hendy then talked about the role of government in creating a sustainable future for the network.

In the afternoon, talk turned to the subject of freight operations, which are often overlooked despite the desperate need to expand the volume of goods moved by rail. Closing the theatre’s line-up, Daisy Chapman-Chamberlain returned to ask an expert panel how (and if) the industry is meeting the needs of disabled passengers and what GBR will mean for the delivery of an accessible railway.

The Engineering Theatre provided insights into rolling stock strategy, electrification, climate resilience, ageing infrastructure, and more.

Beginning the sessions on day one, engineer and writer Gareth Dennis chaired the first panel which examined the need for a rolling stock strategy. The panel asked how we prepare for an uncertain future regarding train control & ETCS, how future fleets can enable level boarding, and what a cohesive rolling strategy might look like.

The next panel looked at the alternative options to electrification, examining their benefits and pitfalls, and asking whether they provide a better long-term option than conventional electrification.

In the afternoon, in consideration of the Carmont disaster, Mona Sihota, head of drainage at Network Rail explained how the industry manages water as rainfall increases the pressure on drainage systems and earthworks. Day one was closed by a discussion on how to overcome the challenges of retaining diverse talent and how to build the teams of the future.

Day two kicked off with an examination of the current rollout of ETCS. It explored the complexities and challenges of delivering Digital Railway technologies, and its successes and challenges to date.

Later in the day, the issue of machine learning and fault detection was discussed, along with a deep dive into how resilience against extreme weather events is being handled. The panel considered whether the industry is striking the right balance between prevention and protection, and how the supply chain can accelerate resilience.

The Safety Theatre offered a similarly packed itinerary, exploring key topics shaping the future of rail safety, technology, and regulation.

Opened by Simon Higgins MBE, chair of the Rail Safety Steering Group, day one featured two sessions – the first focusing on human / plant interfaces and behaviour. This included discussions on lift truck training and digital enhancements in the people / plant interface. Organisations represented included Balfour Beatty, Story Plant, Finning UK, and the UK Materials Handling Association.

Session two focussed on occupational and mental health, including talks on psychological safety in the supply chain, non-invasive workforce drug testing, and the British Transport Police’s (BTP) approach to suicide prevention and intervention. Guest speakers included Railway Mission Executive Director Liam Johnstone, Lisa Regan, risk and safety intelligence analyst at RSSB, and Christopher Sutherland, Inspector, Public Protection & Vulnerability at BTP.

Day two at the Safety Theatre was dedicated to Keeping Customers and Neighbours safe. Richard Hines, HM Chief Inspector of Railways gave his perspective on delivering a healthier and safer railway before Stephen Goss from Campaign for Better Transport highlighted the importance of accessibility for passengers.

RSSB’s Charlotte Sweet discussed how the industry is working to prevent trespass and suicide, handing over to West Midlands Train’s Jamie Ainsworth, who explained what the operator is doing to tackle antisocial behaviour on its network. The day concluded with a conversation featuring Andrew Hall, chief inspector of rail accidents at the RAIB.

Summing up

As in previous years, Rail Live 2025 proved to be an expansive and engaging event, successfully showcasing the best the rail industry has to offer. With so much to see, spread across such a vast site, it’s difficult to capture the true scale of the exhibition, but hopefully we’ve provided a comprehensive snapshot in these pages.

Looking ahead, work is already underway to make Rail Live 2026 a similarly successful event. Scheduled for 17-18 June 2026, the next instalment is sure to excite, inspire, and educate.

EYE CATCHING INNOVATION

Rail Live was founded as a showcase for rail plant and equipment - and that’s exactly what Rail Engineer set out to explore. True to form, the exhibition site was a sea of machinery, with equipment of every shape and size on display, ready to be examined, admired, and discussed in depth. Here we give you a roundup of the items which caught our eye.

MATT ATKINS

Sustainability focus

With the drive toward netzero being a key concern for the industry, it only made sense that there were plenty of carbon-cutting innovations at Rail Live this year. Among the offerings was a portable, solar-powered CCTV tower from Trust Hire, designed for deployment in remote locations.

The energy-efficient unit harnesses solar panels to charge its onboard batteries during daylight hours, enabling the motion-sensing CCTV system to operate around the clock without the need for an external power supply. The system can function autonomously for up to four weeks on a single charge. Its intelligent detection system offers a 130-metre range and is capable of distinguishing between humans and animals, significantly reducing the likelihood of false alarms.

Over at stand B8, Gripple displayed its game-changing innovations for overhead line electrification. With over 30 years of engineering know how, Gripple works closely with the industry to tackle the challenges of electrification and help it meet its net-zero targets, its tool-free solutions streamlining overhead line installation and reducing whole-life costs.

On show were Gripple’s SwiftLine Rail Dropper and SwiftLine Rail Jumper. The Rail Dropper was developed alongside and approved by Network Rail. The novel catenary dropper is designed to be quicker, safer, and easier to install, coming pre-cut and preassembled, giving contractors a ‘plug and play’ solution straight out of the box.

Gripple’s equally innovative Swiftline Rail Jumper provides tool-free installation and reduces cable strain on high voltage jumper section installs, giving installers the power to electrify overhead lines faster, safer, and more effectively.

Drones and robotics

Ultrabeam is a specialist in high-definition underwater sonar inspections of bridges, culverts, retaining walls, and coastal or estuarine structures. On display at its stand was an array of robotic equipment designed to ensure its surveys deliver highly detailed insights into submerged features and how these structures interact with the riverbed.

The autonomous Axolotl is a light, portable, amphibious autonomous survey vehicle developed by Ultrabeam for land and water operations. Powered by dual 8kW electric motors and a 4×4 wheel drive system, Axolotl reaches speeds up to 12mph on land. On water, two Epropulsion 3kW thrusters provide propulsion at speeds of up to 4mph. With 48V Tesla battery modules, the vehicle offers over 12 hours of endurance and a maximum range of up to 60 miles.

Black Swan, meanwhile, is a compact, modular survey platform designed for inland and sheltered water environments. Built around a lightweight carbon fibre chassis supported by inflatable sponsons, it offers flexible mounting configurations for multibeam echosounders (MBES), LiDAR sensors, acquisition pods, cameras, and control systems.

Powered by onboard lithium-ion batteries, Black Swan can deliver full-day operational endurance without the need for battery swaps.

A specialist in remote-controlled demolition and excavation robotics, Brokk brought to Rail Live a suite of products designed for delivering safer, more efficient, and more productive options for construction, tunnelling, and emergency response.

Packing powerful demolition capability into a compact, lightweight frame, its Brokk 70 is a small, electric demolition robot designed for safe and efficient demolition in confined spaces.

Weighing under 560kg and powered by Brokk’s 9.8 kW SmartPower™ system, it eliminates the need for handheld tools, delivering safe, efficient mechanised demolition where larger machines can’t go.

For projects requiring a more heavy-duty demolition solution, the larger Brokk 500 platform provides a more robust option.

The Brokk 500 demolition robot is a remotecontrolled, tracked machine which at Rail Live was equipped with a vacuum excavation attachment. Vacuum excavation is increasingly being adopted across the industry, offering a safer alternative to traditional excavators when working near underground cables or pipes. Also on show was Firstgreen Industries’ Mini Z 400, a remotely operated, small-tracked loader, distributed by Brokk. Designed to work in tight, indoor, or noise-sensitive environments, the machine is ideal for construction, property management, demolition, landscaping, and urban jobsites. At only 31” wide and 81” tall, it can fit through narrow doorways and gates where traditional machinery can’t.

Big machines

Unipart’s new sleeper laying machine, developed and built at its Coventry facility, was on show for all to admire. The machine is capable of carrying up to 14 sleepers onboard, which it autonomously lays and accurately spaces along a pre-programmed route.

The Sleeper Layer can provide delivery rates of up to 1000 sleepers/ties per hour, and offers a variety of options including automatic steering, remote condition monitoring, and diagnostic support. It is designed for efficiency, and requires just one operator to monitor its safe operation.

Sleepers are loaded via a road-rail vehicle (RRV), which can lift multiple units at once from either the ground or a rail trailer. They are then fed onto a conveyor, which spaces them precisely before placing them onto the ballast. The machine is compatible with concrete, composite, and steel sleepers.

The Sleeper Layer operates alongside Unipart’s Rail Handler and Rail Clipper to streamline track installation. The Rail Handler can lift and transport rails up to 10 metres long, making it suitable for both ballasted and slab track relaying. It can also thread continuously welded rail of any length onto new track, handling one or two rails at a time.

The Rail Clipper is a self-propelled, remotely operated machine equipped with robust rubber tracks, allowing it to load and unload itself from transport vehicles and access the railway without the need for a crane. It features interchangeable modules to accommodate a variety of fastening systems.

Flash-butt welding has been around for some time, though it has seen limited uptake across the UK rail network. The method uses a high electrical current to fuse two lengths of rail together, creating a seamless joint. One of the barriers to wider adoption has been the need for a large, separate generator and a heavy welding unit – equipment that typically requires a roadrail vehicle (RRV) excavator for lifting.

On Track Technicians has now simplified the process by integrating both the generator and lifting crane onto a single RRV platform. The setup is built around a rail-adapted Mercedes Actros, modified by UK-based King Rail, and fitted with flash-butt welding equipment and a generator from Geismar. The system is currently awaiting approval for operational use on Britain’s railways.

A Menzi Muck Spider Excavator stood pride of place at the stand of landscape and external maintenance services provider Ground Control Ltd.

Its four individually adjustable legs give it unprecedented mobility and make it a highly versatile piece of equipment for use in challenging environments. The legs can be fitted with either wheels or tracks, depending on the terrain and specific model, and its design offers exceptional stability on slopes up to 45 degrees. The machine is aptly nicknamed ‘the mountain goat of earth-moving’ due to its distinctive, creature-like stance and unrivalled stability.

Rail and forestry contractor Coombes showed off its larger pieces of equipment including a road-rail excavator which was fitted with an attachment for the handling and dispensing of cable reels weighing up to five tonnes. The RRV works alongside a rail trailer which has a carrying capacity of 20 tonnes and can transport two reels at once.

Also on display was a Green Climber LV800 remote controlled, heavy duty slope mower, designed for forestry and vegetation management in extremely challenging terrain. Intended for forestry and heavy vegetation applications, the LV800 excels in areas of three to six years of overgrowth. The machine is radio controlled at distances up to 500 feet, protecting the user while maintaining a comprehensive view of the working area.

Handheld technology

It’s not just the largest and most cutting-edge equipment that takes the spotlight at Rail Live. The event also gives the manufacturers of smaller, handheld tools the opportunity to showcase their wares, and, over the past few years, this equipment has increasingly come to be powered by battery technology.

There was plenty on show from Milwaukee, which displayed a wide range of hand tools for vegetation management. The range included battery-operated hand tools including a pole strimmer which lasts up to 45 minutes on a single charge, and a batterypowered chainsaw which can make up 150 cuts per battery.

Bosch was also keen to showcase its latest equipment, as well as its solutions to improving battery performance and longevity.

To overcome the effects of heat when batteries are charged or under heavy and constant load, Bosch has developed a patented cell casing which draws the heat away. This not only prolongs the life of the cells, but it also means their batteries can provide up to 12Ah of charge and power tools with a power rating equivalent to 1600W. Bosch’s latest hand tools also have smart battery technology built in that protects the batteries from becoming overloaded.

Smarter, safer welding

Among the many live equipment demonstrations on offer, leading rail infrastructure solution provider Pandrol showcased its cutting-edge welding technology.

Pandrol’s Technical Team carried out practical demonstrations of its i+weld advanced welding solution, which helps track welders to complete more welds in less time, with semi-automated processes that reduce the physical strain on welders and streamline training.

Visitors were also treated to a demonstration of i+align, an innovative lightweight alignment system for aluminothermic welding. Easy to set up and use, the i+align system can be handled by one person, who simply chooses alignment parameters and presses start on a tablet.

The rail is then automatically aligned, providing exceptional accuracy for the welder and offering complete traceability.

Innovation unleashed Rail Live 2025 had it all, delivering an immersive showcase of rail plant and equipment, ranging from mighty maintenance vehicles to smart, compact tools. This year’s attendees were treated to the full spectrum of industry technology in action in a live rail environment, and were left looking forward to what next year’s event will bring. With hands-on demonstrations, real-world testing conditions, and the opportunity to engage directly with manufacturers and innovators, Rail Live once again proved itself as the go-to event for anyone serious about the future of rail plant and engineering.

First ETCS Business Readiness Congress

In July, the first European Train Control System (ETCS) Business Readiness Congress took place over two days in London. This included topics such as driver and operator training, overcoming operational challenges, adopting new standards, new ways of testing, retro fitting ETCS to trains, and managing transition risks with implementing and operating ETCS.

ETCS is not just a new way of signalling trains, and to gain the full benefits of the system requires successful change management and a cultural transformation of how railways operate. This was made very clear by the speakers and the technology on display, including smart simulators.

Northern City Line lessons learned

Ollie Turner head of ERTMS at GTR, shared the lessons learned from implementing ETCS on the Northern City Line between Finsbury Park and Moorgate.

From May, and after a year operating as ETCS overlay, this became the first commuter railway in Britain to run without conventional track side signals, and including Automatic Train Operations (ATO). Ollie explained how strong business engagement was achieved, including the use of specialist managers and close working with the trade unions.

from all other issues in the business. Union representatives were also upskilled with ETCS training, and visits to the Cambrian system were organised. He stressed that it was important to be very clear about what was being tested during the proving trials and to make the best use of, and not lose, critical train access. It is important to start planning for systems proving earlier rather than later. The involvement of train planners is also vital. A 27-hour testing window was lost due to a possession planning error and more access was required than originally anticipated. The Office of Road and Rail (ORR) Authorisation for Placing In Service (APIS) is a thorough and tough process, but APIS does not equal an operational train ready for service, said Ollie.

Driver and test train resource need to be drawn from a pool of competent and available staff. Experienced drivers soon spot any problems arising from any incorrect design assumptions, and Ollie also mentioned that baseline upgrades should be avoided when driver training is underway.

To illustrate how important it is to manage ETCS as a system, Ollie explained that GSM-R is at the heart of ETCS and that adequate specialist telecoms resource is required. The Northern City Line project faced challenges due to constrained telecoms resources, as multiple toppriority initiatives competed for attention.

The railway has a set way of communicating with its frontline staff, which may not always be the best for a system change such as ETCS. Projects may need to think ‘outside the box’ for ways to communicate if they want to achieve results. Staff do not need to know the technical details, but they need to know the ‘why’ behind the new way of ETCS working.

Govia Thameslink Railway runs one of its Great Northern Moorgate Class 717 trains using the digital in-cab signalling system ETCS level 2 (European Train Control System).

An ETCS training course of five days duration was agreed versus the national assumption of 15 days. A monthly meeting with stakeholders including health and safety representatives was established for ETCS, completely separate

Elizabeth line

Effective front-line communication was also a key message from Imran Chaudhry head of safety & assurance at GTS Rail which operates the Elizabeth line in London. GTS use a fleet of 70 Class 345 ninecar fixed formation Aventra units with AWS / TPWS, CBTC (including ATO) and ETCS Level 2 overlay. This includes operating the world’s only heavy rail auto-reverse system between Paddington and Westbourne Park.

Two near-identical speeding incidents were identified with driver’s wrongly managing the train speed to the higher intervention speed and not the line speed. Applying the company’s ‘Just Culture’ model and discussing the issue with the trade unions, revised instructions were developed and the failure mode raised with the drivers. Checks were added to the automated data feeds to look for similar instances, and a software update was provided to alert drivers to use the correct mode. More issues came to light, which, given the complexity of the system, was to be expected explained Imran. The flow of information to drivers, trainers, assessors, and control teams became a concern, and the strong relationships that had been established with the trade unions through open, early, and transparent engagement was vital.

A driver was made available to the project to assist with updating key documents, such as the ‘Essentials Manual’. The language was changed to make sure the explanations resonated with drivers, trainers, assessors, and control teams. Stakeholders were also involved to ensure clear communications at all levels was in place. The lessons learned have been used as part of the businesses driver ‘RISK’ communication campaign. This has included podcast style communications, posters and pop-up banners, and interviews with key people involved with ETCS / CBTC operation. The campaigns regularly receive viewing figures of 80% of drivers.

Despite the problems driver turnover rates have been low at less than 3% (the predicted loss was 10%). Imran said the technology is “absolutely

amazing” and is every bit as transformational as expected, and will probably be more so in time. Drivers and operators have found the system far easier to use than expected and it is very reliable. He finished by saying people are key, and to make sure they know who to go to when they need simple answers to complex questions.

Data for ETCS systematic failure analysis

There are many other benefits of ETCS data, as explained by Connor Philpott, ERTMS engineering subject matter expert at GTR. A Fully Automatic Selective Door Opening (FASDO) stopping window using Eurobalises was introduced at Drayton Park to trigger an automatic power changeover between overhead line and third rail when a Class 717 train came to a stand within a 10-metre

GTR carries passengers in 717 using updated version of ETCS.

window. This would allow the driver to focus on the passengers getting on and off the train and not have to worry about carrying out a manual power changeover. Platform 1 worked 90% of the time, however Platform 2 never worked. By analysing the data it was identified that the window had been placed too far forwards.

Using the data from the live system, a distribution curve was established to ensure a new value would capture as many instances as possible within the 10-metre window, while still allowing for slight overshoots. It was determined that moving the window 8 metres back would resolve the problem. Platform 1 was also adjusted slightly to get the same level of consistency.

The data played a key part in rectifying this problem and finding a solution. Connor explained a few more examples where ETCS data had been used to resolve problems, and he said that data is objective as it tells a story of exactly what happened, and it is recorded automatically. It allows analysis of trends to predict future failures and can provide key insights into complex behaviours to model solutions.

Dutch ERTMS

Thijs van Steen gave an overview of the Dutch ERTMS Programme and the Netherland’s migration and delivery strategy. He explained the changes that have been made to the programme and finished with some key learning points:

» Always keep the end in mind.

» No individual really grasps the whole challenge, and those who say they do are dangerous.

» System integration is a verb and requires strong management, as ERTMS requires changes in a complex ecosystem.

» Programmes must undo (or avoid) ‘the great divide’ and must rally operational disciplines and it may be necessary to slow signalling engineers down. It is important that ETCS is not seen as just a new way of signalling, as it requires changes in many aspects of operating a railway.

» Change is hard - it requires time, determination and stamina.

Daim Willemse of Pro Rail covered the testing of a simulation when preparing for ETCS. He explained how existing data and talent management was used by Pro Rail. Pro Rail’s existing signalling was ‘good’. It did all that was required and there

was no need to replace it.

“Why fix a system that still runs perfectly?” Daim said. This is often the case, and resistance to change a well-functioning legacy system can become a significant blocker to necessary change. However, Pro Rail was concerned how long it could support the existing technology, as knowledge and spares were quickly running out for example.

Daim stressed the importance of open engineering and knowledge transfer. Knowledge and the experience gained must be shared to achieve consistent implementation. A key part of the safety case for ETCS implementation must include the need to recruit and train the future workforce.

The railway industry is inherently action orientated and less good at planning, so to achieve successful ETCS implementation it is vital to use data driven processes, to set achievable goals, work with an actual problem, and expand on the experience of learning. Daim also covered the concept of a Personal Protective Strategy (PPS). People need competency and confidence to use a new system such as ETCS. It’s a case of use it or lose it. ETCS ‘traps’ are different to conventional signalling. People do not need to know lots of information, but they need to know what to do when faced with a new trap.

He gave an example of drivers at certain platforms needing to open train doors on the other side of a train and a PPS solution to potentially opening the ‘wrong’ side was to encourage drivers to face the side of the train next to the platform.

East Coast Digital Programme

Jessica Linhart, ETCS project manager for Network Rail Operations (East Coast), explained the operational lessons learned from the initial stage of the East Coast Digital Programme (ECDP) covering the first 100 miles of the East Coast mainline in England. ETCS overlay and signals away were completed in May 2025 and, from the December 2025 timetable change, 19 trains per hour will operate through the overlay area.

Key to the preparation for ETCS was achieving stakeholder buy in from trade unions, frontline staff, safety and human factors, directors, and managers, explained Jessica. She recommended “making it simple before adding complexity” and to ensure stakeholders are involved in such things as panel design, route setting functions, and workspace design. Non-ETCS changes, such as line speed, level crossings, recontrols, and timetable changes also need to be subject to the same process and ongoing engagement with end users throughout design is essential.

The pre-deployment stage needs to cover the testing and understanding of the process changes, including operating principles,

new documentation, and operational scenarios. Timings need to be clear to cover how deployment fits with changes to the role and workplace, and to address change overload. Implementation and bedding-in of any preparation work, such as route setting and panel changes, need addressing, along with visibility and communication. The operations manager must establish a presence with the end users and be involved with both formal and informal communication channels. Who needs training and to what level for day one needs to be clear. Managing the delivery stage needs visibility and communication, with ongoing support and engagement in place from day one. Reviewing and managing performance also needs to be in place along with reviewing processes and procedures, such as the management of degraded situations based on percentage of ETCS services. Training and briefing of staff must continue to address any skill fade and provide continuous improvement and updates.

Jessica’s key ‘lessons learned’ are to avoid the bespoke and reach agreement at a national level for design and processes. Work with regions and national programmes for such things as the management of fleet fitment, reference design, and areas for deployment. Identify opportunities with sharing lessons for future deployments, including efficiencies - even if non ETCS. Handing over needs to be a collaborative process and best practice needs to be embedded into business-asusual.

Australian ETCS

Paul Nicholson, principal engineer for Rio Tinto AutoHaul System, joined live from Australia to provide a fascinating example of ETCS in action. Rio Tinto relies on shipping iron ore from mining operations in Tom Price to the port of Cape Lambert as a critical 24/7 operation. The average return journey of the 2.4km-long trains is 800km, taking approximately 40 hours. For the last eight years ETCS has been used as part of a system to control autonomous trains, consisting of three locomotives and carrying around 28,000 tonnes of iron ore, monitored remotely by operators in Perth more than 1,500km away. Previously when the trains were driven, every time there was a driver change the train needed to stop. On a typical journey this would take place three times, adding more

than an hour to the journey. The driver change points were also in very remote areas and drivers needed to be transported 1.5 million kilometres each year as they changed shift. So, there was also a strong safety benefit for the change.

Paul explained how the system had been implemented, including the processes for operational readiness, training, maintenance, and safe working practices. There were no forced redundancies of drivers. Many were reaching retirement, some transferred to other roles, and others took voluntary redundancy. Some drivers were retained as ‘rescue drivers’ to recover trains in the event of an ETCS failure. However, the system has been so reliable that special arrangements have had to be implemented to run some trains manually to help retain competency.

Software defined solution

The cost, size, and difficulty of fitting ETCS equipment to trains is a concern to many in the industry. Jarlath Lally from The Signalling Company, based in Belgium, explained its softwaredefined ETCS solution for trains which could be a way forward. The company was founded in 2019 as a joint venture between ERTMS Solutions and Lineas SA, to revolutionise how on-board safety systems are designed, deployed, and maintained, and now operates as part of the Skoda Group.

Jarlath explained that traditional ETCS solutions for trains are too big, too heavy, too complex, too bespoke, and costs too much. The Signalling Company is developing a solution known as RailOS. Similar to what Apple IOS has achieved for the mobile telecoms industry, this aims to deliver the same benefits for rail, RailIOS is based on using a single powerful ‘off the shelf’ processor and software, with a high safety integrity to support many applications. The solution will be lighter, smaller, and more energy efficient than traditional on-board systems, and with open Ethernet communications. Jarlath said it will be scalable for possible track side use and for train ETCS could be deployed in two weeks and at a tenth or less cost than traditional on board ETCS solutions.

Conclusion

These are only a few of the 30 presentations, case studies, and extended Q&As, which are available from the strategy engineering research group. There were some common themes, such as communications, control rooms, and driver training behind the ready-for-service schedules. Presenters said it was difficult for some operators to fully commit to a new system when the old one was still operating, but things can change quickly and the old system can become a liability. One solution was to create a ‘cliff edge’, with

a firm cut-off date. However, in his post-conference report, Chair Steve Thomas said it was important to balance cliff-edge deployment with confidencebuilding. People may need a firm go-live date to incentivise action, but they also need tools and support to make things happen. There were clear examples of how to align training timelines with roll out phases. Train too early, and people forget. Train too late, and they get confused.

Another key message was that design with human factors in mind is required from day one. Integrated ergonomics, cognitive modelling, and operator interface testing early on were stressed as important as they can mean the difference between success and failure. Training systems, including simulations, were a regular topic and discussion. The point was made that this should also include engineers and non-drivers to build confidence in the system.

Degraded mode procedures need to be established as many said degraded mode working is inconsistently defined and implemented.

The organisations making real progress are the ones doing the basics well, with practical, thoughtful, simple strategies, delivered with consistency and care. We also learned where this approach is working, such as on the Elizabeth line and sections of the Northern City Line.

The ETCS Business Readiness Congress 2026 will be held in Brussels on 12-13 March 2026.

Twenty-five years of CIRO

DAVID SHIRRES

On 11 June, the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (CIRO) held a special Jubilee Lunch for over 200 guests from across the rail industry to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Speaking at this event Lord Peter Hendy commented on the valuable work that CIRO was doing to promote this highest of standards amongst its membership. Its chair, Jim Meade commented that CIRO has given railway operators the tools, recognition, and professional community they deserve, while CEO Phil Sherratt spoke of the Institution’s evolving role in supporting a modern skilled workforce.

Other events during this anniversary year included the naming of a GB Railfreight Class 66 locomotive after the Institution and various events aligned with the national Railway 200 campaign.

Railway operators

The profession of railway operator is as old as the railway itself. Two hundred years ago, this new guided transport system could not move around obstacles on the track and had trains travelling at unprecedented high speeds. Operating this novel system safely and efficiently needed a disciplined approach to the management of trains and the development of rules. This required staff to learn and follow the rule book and understand how the railway worked. Historically, railway management was promoted from the ranks of these individuals and so had the benefit of years of practical experience that provided managers with an understanding of what would work and what would not.

However, with the fragmentation of the rail industry it was no longer possible for prospective railway operators to gain the required cross-industry skills to become a competent railway operator. At a Rail Summit in 1998 it was recognised that an Institution of Railway Operators (IRO) was required to address the shortage of operational skills which threatened the ambition of a first-class railway. Founding members from all parts of the industry defined how IRO would operate. Membership of the institution was to be open to all operating staff including train crew, signallers, and train planners.

IRO was officially launched in 2000 with an inaugural lecture by Chris Green who, at the time, was CEO of Virgin Trains. Green considered that, as a successful railway required both professional engineers and operators, IRO was the “missing institution”. IRO aimed to raise the standard of railway operators through education in the same way that the professional engineering institutions promote the development and education of their members. Thus, IRO had an ambition for operators to be accredited up to degree level.

Education and development

In 2005, IRO started its first course with Glasgow Caledonian University which offered students the chance to study for a BSc degree in railway operations management. The Professional Operations Development (POD) framework was developed by the IRO and has been the foundation of professional learning in railway operations ever since.

Today, POD continues to underpin all of the CIRO’s learning and development offerings – from online short courses and apprenticeships to degree-level study and the MBA in Railway Operations. It also

promotes whole system thinking to advance understanding of the main relationships in the rail system and the consequences and tradeoffs involved in decision making. In 2012, it was decided that the POD elements should be composed of the following 12 elements:

» Performance management.

» Delivering passenger and freight services.

» Managing safety.

» Delivering customer service.

» Operational planning and timetabling.

» Train movement control systems.

» Rolling stock and fleet management.

» Railway engineering, maintenance, and renewal management.

» People and change.

» Railway organisations business context.

» Financial and investment planning.

» Emergency and incident management.

2013 saw the launch of IRO Learn which was a platform to increase accessibility of learning to more operators with new e-learning aligned to the POD framework. This was revamped with new materials in 2020 to become the Rail Academy. The Rail Academy used technology that allowed IRO corporate members to adapt their employees' learning to their business while still meeting the POD standard. Corporate members were given a free ‘room’ setup in which they could allocate IRO e-learning resources and undertake assessments.

In 2023, CIRO received Ofqual recognition as an awarding organisation which allows it to develop qualifications under its royal charter. From the start, some companies, such as South West Trains recognised the importance of the training and development offered by the IRO. When a company becomes a corporate member, its employees can join free of charge at Affiliate or Associate level so that they have access to the Institution’s learning resources.

10,000th member

In 2021, IRO welcomed its 10,000th member and also became ‘CIRO’ as it achieved chartered status. This was granted by Queen Ellizabeth II on the advice of the Privy Council, in recognition of its work to enhance the professionalism in railway operations through its training and development programmes.

CIRO is based in Stafford. Its first office opened there in 2012. Prior to that, its volunteers and staff worked from home. From the start, IRO set up Area Councils throughout the UK to arrange presentations, visits, and social gatherings. There are currently six UK Area Councils plus those for Ireland, Australia / New Zealand, and South Africa.

The current organisation and training provided by CIRO is the result of the vision of its founder members who feared that their experience and knowledge might be lost with the segregation of the industry following its privatisation.

The Institution’s current vision is specified in its 2024-2026 strategic plan. This aligns with the priorities outlined in Labour's Plan to Fix Britain's Railways, as it supports key themes such as workforce development, operational excellence, and creating a railway that works for everyone and focuses on:

» Building a high-profile reputation.

» Enhancing the professional standing of rail operations professionals.

» Expanding global reach and influence.

» Becoming the learning provider of choice in rail education.

» Creating an inclusive and sustainable organisation.

CIRO CEO Phil Sherratt, who joined the Institution in October 2024, commented that these values reflect CIRO’s “ambition to be at the forefront of rail operations, supporting workforce development and industry growth. As the UK rail industry embarks on a new era with GBR reform, CIRO stands ready to equip professionals with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed.”

Discontinuous

ELECTRIFICATION IN THE CARDIFF VALLEYS

Rhas covered the upgrade of the so-called Core Valley Lines (CVL) extensively. In Issue 197 (July/August 2022) we reported on construction progress including aerial shots of site clearance for Taff’s Well depot. By November 2024, we were able to travel on one of the new trains and visit the new depot and its new Class 398 trains. This latest article describes some of the challenges that engineers overcame in delivering the upgrades.

In passing, it’s worth restating that the lines from Cardiff Queen Street to Cardiff Bay, Rhymney, Coryton, Treherbert, Aberdaren, and Merthyr Tydfil are under the control of Transport for Wales (TfW) and this has provided both opportunities and challenges. On completion of the South

Wales Metro project, the signalling of these lines will also be transferred from Network Rail to TfW, with teams based out of the newly built Integrated Control Centre in Taff’s Well.

This is a significant project, involving 218km of track, two depots, two sets of stabling

which will be used to electrify 170km of track, is based on the UK Master Series 100 design range. The Valley railway lines are over 150 years old, originally used to transport coal from the South Wales Valleys into Cardiff, with a lot of the structures such as bridges and viaducts incompatible with 25kV OLE gauge and clearances. It was therefore decided to use discontinuous electrification to minimise the number of civil engineering interventions and the amount of track lowering to reduce capital expenditure.

Two varieties

Discontinuous electrification comes in two varieties: permanently earthed sections (PES) - similar to long neutral sections - where the pantograph remains raised; and catenary free sections (CFS) where the pantograph has to be lowered. While the use of CFS and PES reduces the overall cost of installing OLE, avoiding costly civil engineering interventions, the complex system does require additional maintenance over its lifespan.

Conventional electrification involves a relatively straightforward interface between train and OLE

requiring a robust AC supply to power the trains continuously. Discontinuous electrification adds complication. To keep the trains moving through both PES and CFS, batteries are required on the trains. This leads to the need for collaborative system modelling between the electrification and rolling stock teams. ‘How big should the battery range be?’ and ‘What extra electrical capacity needs to be provided to charge batteries?’ are just two of the questions that had to be addressed. Modelling led to a decision on battery range, a conclusion necessary to allow the trains to be designed. The

infrastructure team then had to manage within this constraint.

This meant, for example, that if one area was found not to be suitable for live OLE, the models had to be re-run to identify an area elsewhere where live OLE could be extended while not exceeding the battery range/charging parameters already determined. There are also challenges arising from the capacitance of the ground-based 25kV cables required to link the live OLE sections together.

It is worth mentioning that providing batteries on the trains delivered benefits in stabling and depot areas. For example,

Progress of a train from left to right through a Permanently Earthed Section.

Section through power module on Class 756 showing three battery packs and one diesel generator.

at Taff’s Well depot the only OLE is on the straight stabling roads and then only for battery charging. Train movements are entirely by battery power. This means that complex OLE ‘knitting’ through points and crossings and in maintenance sheds is avoided. The exception is one shed road where there is a retractable rigid OLE section for testing. There is also the opportunity to avoid OLE in areas that are sensitive to, or too complex for, OLE installations. Some areas that are not wired include:

» Complex stations: Pontypridd, Cardiff Queen St.

» Grade 2 listed structures: Llanbradach & Hengoed footbridges, Merthyr Viaduct, Rhondda Viaduct, and Caerphilly Tunnel.

» Minimising EMI Interference risk: Cardiff University’s sensitive medical scanning equipment.

Design of PES and CFS

Permanently earthed sections are not new to UK railways. Examples are on the Romfordto-Upminster branch in east London and on the Paisley Canal electrification in Scotland where trains were required to coast through them, not unlike neutral sections. For the CVL, the sections are often much

longer, hence the on-train battery requirement. A great deal of effort was put into the design to ensure that the sections are indeed earthed, although staff are still instructed to treat them as live unless the OLE isolation and earthing process has been applied.

The live and earthed sections are joined by insulating components. On approach to a PES, a beacon in the four-foot (see Beacons) instructs the train to switch to battery power. At the end of the PES, once 25kV is detected by the train, it switches back to that supply.

When approaching catenary free sections, it is necessary to ensure that the pantograph is down. The main command comes from a beacon instructing the train to lower the pantograph and switch to battery power. As a back-up, in the event that this message is not received, the catenary wire height will gradually increase to above the height where the pantograph’s over-height detection forces it to lower (see diagram). When the train has passed the obstruction and is, once again, under the catenary, it passes a second beacon which instructs the pantograph to be raised and to switch back from battery to 25kV operation.

All this required significant safety analysis and, in many instances, TfW working with Amey Infrastructure Wales applied their own product acceptance and assurance processes. Some of the issues faced by engineers, safety assessors, and assurers included:

» The possibility that the extensive use of ground level HV cables might lead to unexpectedly high voltages in low load conditions while considering if shunt reactors might be required.

» Whether discharge to earth from the ground based HV cables would be higher than expected.

» Managing HV cables through CFS or PES stations while maintaining under platform recess.

» Design variations made necessary by both the geology of the land and ground conditions resulting from past mining operations.

Two fleets

Two fleets will operate on the Core Valley Lines once the Metro is completed. These consist of the Class 398 bi-mode tram-train and Class 756 tri-mode train. The former was described in Issue 212 (Jan-Feb 2025). The Class 756 fleet comprises threeand four-car units, each with a central ‘power pack’. These units can be powered using the 25kv OLE, and diesel/ battery power through non-electrified sections. The power module housed three battery modules and a 480kW diesel generator. The maximum output through the four motored axles is 2.6MW on 25kV and 1.3MW on battery. All three modes are controlled by a power converter/energy manager which sets the power source to the appropriate conditions. Regenerated braking energy is used to charge the batteries and any excess is fed back into the OLE. There is a diesel/ battery mode for travelling on longer, non-electrified routes. The diesel engine takes some

of the load, preserving battery charge and extending the range. At locations where the electrical load is low, such as when stopped at a station or when coasting, the engine can charge the batteries.

The Class 756 entered service in November 2024 on the Merthyr and Aberdare lines and then entered service onto the Treherbert line in February 2025. Its introduction marked the first time the beacon system was used on the CVL to allow for automatic power mode changeover.

As this was a novel system to TfW, and several parties were involved, a great deal of effort was put into building relationships to ensure any teething issues with this automatic power changeover were thoroughly investigated. To support the investigation of any emerging issues, a cross-party working group was formed, which developed a Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System.

Due to collaborative efforts to investigate incidents, new software is being implemented to address issues. This has led to improved performance and reliability of the Class 756 trains on the Merthyr, Aberdare, and Treherbert lines. As of June 2025, 14 Class 756 trains are operational on these lines, replacing all legacy Class 150 units.

Post-completion

On completion of the transformation project, the plan is to run Class 756 trains on the Rhymney and Coryton

lines. Services will run from Rhymney through Cardiff and onwards to Barry Island and Bridgend via the Vale of Glamorgan. As the section of track South of Cardiff Central through to the Vale of Glamorgan is under the ownership of Network Rail, the 756s will make use of their diesel generator to travel on this non-electrified section.

The Class 398 trains will run on the Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, and Cardiff Bay lines. The tram-trains will run only within the boundaries of the CVL, utilising 25kV from the overhead wires and battery power through short nonwired sections. Their unique ability to run as a tram on light rail infrastructure will also be utilised as part of ‘Cardiff Crossrail’, a project to install a new tram-line connection from Cardiff Bay, Cardiff Central, and potentially beyond.

In July 2025, five additional Class 756 trains will be introduced onto the Coryton and

lower Rhymney line, travelling between Coryton, Caerphilly, and Penarth. The Coryton and lower Rhymney lines are now fully electrified, following the completion of infrastructure works in Spring 2025.

Daytime proving runs of the Class 398 tram-trains has begun on the Merthyr, Aberdare, and Treherbert lines. TfW can therefore begin to see the planned transformation of these services being realised. Engineers are looking forward to validating the extensive modelling that was carried out during the system design with a very large number of variables and assumptions. Other promoters of discontinuous electrification systems will be watching closely.

This article is based on a presentation given in April 2025 to the IMechE South Western Centre by Ian Edwards and Alexander Evans from Transport for Wales.

BEACONS: APMC - ASDO

Gangway through the power module Classes 231/756.

The system used for controlling switching to battery power and for raising/lowering the pantograph is known as Automatic Power Mode Change (APMC). It is piggy-backed onto the Automatic Selective Door Open (ASDO) system required on these trains. The system used is a development of the Sella Controls’ Tracklink III system used extensively for ASDO on other fleets and for the positive prevention of overspeeding system on Corydon’s trams. It comprises on-train readers and track mounted Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The only input required from the driver is the initial destination setting. The rest is managed though the system’s database.

Batteries included

In February 2015, a battery-fitted Class 379 Electrostar undertook trials on the Harwich branch. This independently-powered EMU (IPEMU) was the first battery-powered train on the UK rail network for more than 50 years. During its trials, it ran with its pantograph retracted to give it a duty cycle of 30km on battery power and 50km powered by the overhead line equipment (OLE). At one stage, a range of 77km on battery power was achieved.

Our report on this trial in Issue 125 (March 2015) showed that its batteries weighed eight tonnes and had a capacity of 450kWh, half of which was required for heating and auxiliaries. This is an energy density of 56 Watts/kg.

Though this trial successfully demonstrated the potential of IPEMUs, it was to be over eight years before a production IPEMU entered service. This was Merseyrail’s Class 777/1 EMU which has a 55km battery range to enable it to operate on an unelectrified line to Headstone Lane. IPEMUs are now known as Battery EMUs (BEMUs) while tri-modes are trains that can operate on electric, battery, or diesel power.

In November 2024, Transport for Wales (TFW) introduced the Class 756 tri-mode unit. Next year, TfW will also introduce battery-powered Class 398 tram-train BEMUs on their Core Valley Lines which have discontinuous electrification. The Great Western Railways (GWR) Class 230 units are entirely battery powered and are to be introduced this year on their Greenford branch.

Thus, battery traction is now a mature technology that will increasingly be a part of future rolling stock orders with significant implications for future electrification. Hence a recent seminar run by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) titled ‘Rolling Stock 2025: Batteries and BEMUs’ was indeed timely.

Fast charging

The Class 230 battery unit was originally developed by Vivarail by re-engineering surplus London Underground D stock. After the company went into administration, GWR acquired battery trains and their fast-charging system. Julian Fletcher, GWR’s technology

development manager for the trial on the West Ealing to Greenford branch described the programme to test this unit and its charging system in all conditions. These included: very cold (-18° C), hot, and wet weather; leaves, litter and oil on charging rails; charging system failure; crush loading; and grid failure. The trials proved the system was safe under all conceivable circumstances.

The charging system has a 400V three-phase 63A grid connection which trickle charges a 760V 430kWh fast charge battery bank, and has charging rails within the four foot at West Ealing station’s bay platform which are normally deenergised. When the unit is at the platform, it detects a balise which lowers the charging shoes and energises the charging rail. These charged the unit’s batteries in 3.5 minutes at the rate of 700kW.

Although the 8km round trip on the Greenford branch is not demanding in respect of battery range, the Class 230 travelled 113km on battery power on its journey from Long Marston testing ground to the Reading Train care depot. This shows its potential for use on branch lines much longer than the Greenford branch.

Julian also made the point that a re-engineered vehicle such as the Class 230 has half the embodied carbon of new stock.

Dublin DART+ BEMUs

Peter Smyth, Irish Rail’s chief mechanical engineer, explained how new BEMUs were being introduced to expand the Dublin Area Rapid Transit (DART) system which were ordered in 2021. Twentysix five-car EMUs and 31 fivecar BEMUs have been ordered which will enter service from 2026 onwards. These are 1500V DC OLE, 145km/h Alstom X’Trapolis units, and are fully articulated. They have 550 seats and are 82 metres long.

They offer level boarding with a low floor made possible as the traction battery, and its thermal management and power control systems are roof mounted. The water-cooled Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) batteries have a capacity of 840kWh per five-car unit giving it a range of at least 80km. They have a minimum nine-year life to 75% capacity and have been sized after extensive simulations which included degraded scenarios.

The BEMUs will extend the DART service to Drogheda on the 38km unelectrified line from Malahide. Their worst-case duty cycle is a 105km round trip from Drogheda to Dublin Connolly station and back, of which

Iarnród Éireann unveils its new DART+ Alstom X’Trapolis units.

29km is on the DART’s electrified wires lines. For this reason, the BEMUs will be charged by a fast charger, although regenerative braking will charge batteries while under OLE.

The fast charger facilities have been installed at Drogheda on two platforms and one siding. It has 3.6MWh of energy storage to enable up to four trains of 2 x 5 cars to be charged simultaneously. It will take 20 minutes to charge a five-car BEMU via the two pantographs on its centre car with a charging current of 800A.

The introduction of these trains required a significant amount of infrastructure work including: balises to raise / lower pantographs, simulator building, trackside ETCS, a testing and commissioning facility, and significant depot alterations including a refurbishment of a spare shop with five-car lifting facility. Peter also described the extensive battery fire protection precautions which included an underframe barrier providing 15-minute protection, thermal cameras, shock sensors for transport, and fitment and battery quarantine areas. While there may be an internal failure of a single cell, the resultant impact would be manageable. However, a fire and explosion from a multiple cell thermal runaway is assessed to be within the SIL2 safety target. Dynamic testing of two BEMUs had started in February, and these are expected to enter service towards the end of next year.

TfW’s

BEMUs

TfW Head of Fleet Readiness Rowan Philips explained how the Core Valley Lines out of Cardiff have been transformed with discontinuous electrification and bespoke rolling stock providing a metro-style operation with level boarding. This also required signalling, station, and depot upgrades as well as a new depot for tram-trains.

The discontinuous electrification is 170 single track kilometres (stk) of OLE with 30 catenary free sections (CFS), which generally start at low bridges, and 60 permanently earthed sections (PES). Twenty-four kilometres of the OLE is permanently earthed and CFS have avoided the need to electrify 81stk. A balise before the CFS lowers the pantograph. Should this fail to operate, the OLE is raised to 6.3 metres above track level after 10 seconds running time before the low bridge to raise the pantograph above its maximum normal height causing it to drop automatically.

Two types of battery trains operate under this discontinuous electrification. There are 24 tri-mode Class 756 units which have three or four passenger vehicles with a short ‘Power Pack’ vehicle near the centre of the unit. This contains a 480kW diesel generator set and three LTO battery modules that can supply up to 1,300kW. These trains entered service in January on services between Rhymney and Barry / Bridgend. Battery capacity on the three and four-car trains is respectively 559kWh and 447kWh.

A frequent service on the Teherbert, Aberdare, and Methyr routes is to be provided by 36 Stadler Class 398 CityLink units. These three-car tramtrain BEMUs have 138kWh LTO batteries that supply up

to 600kW. These are currently under test and are expected to enter service early next year.

The Class 756 units are maintained at Cardiff Canton which has been upgraded with, for example, high level access to a battery store and the provision of OLE for charging.

The Class 398’s are maintained at a new depot at Taff Wells. Their energy storage system (ESS) which comprises the traction batteries and battery management system is supplied and supported by ABB. Rowan advised that its maintenance is largely condition based visual inspections for which training and competency requirements were minimal. Rowan advised that the six-month operational experience with the Class 756 had shown the reliability of the ESS to be very good.

Nevertheless, the risk from defective batteries must be addressed as required by the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations. Mitigation to address this includes training to identify critically defective cells and quarantine processes.

As the units are tested and introduced into service, battery charge is closely monitored and compared against that predicted from modelling

Hitachi’s big battery

The biggest battery considered by the seminar was that fitted to a TransPennine Class 802 bi-mode unit which was the subject of a presentation by Hitachi’s Christopher Dautel. The Class 802 is a five-car unit which, in addition to its 25kV OLE power supply, has three cars powered by 700kW Rolls Royce MTU stage IIIB compliant generator units (GU). They operate on the 220km route between Newcastle and Liverpool of which a 90km unelectrified section has steep gradients, long tunnels, covered stations, and big urban areas.

This trial commenced in May 2024 with a Class 802 on which one GU had been replaced by a 575kWh battery and a roof-mounted cooling unit. This reduced the weight of the car concerned by 0.5%. The battery supply was configured so that the train could:

» Run on battery only in operation and when stabled.

» Use battery in combination with other two GUs.

» Recharge from OLE and recover braking energy with potential to charge from GUs.

The preliminary report of this trial showed that:

» Had all three GUs been replaced by batteries, CO2 emissions between Newcastle and Liverpool would be 835kg which is 38% of current emissions.

» Between 0 to 72 km/h the battery provided the same acceleration as the GU.

» The battery had a range of at least 70km at speeds up to 140km/hr.

» Fuel savings in fast mode and eco mode were respectively 35% and 57%.

» It took 50 minutes to charge the battery from the OLE with a current limit of 50A.

» The battery could power train auxiliaries for five hours.

» If all three GUs were replaced by batteries, a return run of 135 km off wire was feasible e.g. York to Scarborough.

Batteries and power

Luke Nolson, traction sales manager for ABB explained the issues associated with battery traction and the capabilities of different cell technologies. He described ABB’s extensive experience of providing batteries and other traction equipment including those on TfW’s battery trains. On electric vehicles, traction batteries offer catenaryfree operations and reduced peak power requirement. Battery-fitted Class 802.

07F – Batteries included – 01

3031 words

For diesel-electric vehicles they offer engine downsizing, reduced maintenance and fuel consumption, as well as providing an acceleration boost. Luke described how ABB had undertaken tests to determine aging and power capability of the following cell technologies: NMC (Nickelmanganese-cobalt), LFP (lithium ferro-phosphate), LTO (lithiumtitanium-oxide). The results of these tests are shown in Table 1. This shows that although

monitored against permitted number of hours for each temperature range.

Dr Dave Hewings, Network Rail’s head of engineering and asset management (electrification & fixed plant) for Wales and Western, explained how traction batteries can make the best use of the electrification asset. However, this requires the electrification system design philosophy to take full account of battery electric train operation. For

analysis pays little attention to stationary trains as auxiliary system demand is considered to be insignificant. In this respect having a figure for maximum auxiliary demand not suitable for battery performance analysis. He felt that, although air temperature can be used to analyse the range of heating and cooling demand, probabilistic modelling is needed to avoid worst-case design limits.

Research

Table 1

Completed

they have a low energy density, LTO cells have significant advantages. For example, their excellent charging performance can collect more regenerated energy.

example, design should not assume continuous electrification and take account of continually improving battery energy densities and the need for dynamic battery charging.

T1195 Battery powered trains route to enter service 2021 S382 Lithium-ion battery safety 2024

T1272 Compatibility and optimisation of rolling stock batteries and appropriate standardisation for charging contact systems and infrastructure 2024

To complete

T1331 Review of dynamic ac electric rolling stock power limitations to consider whether current standards unnecessarily constrain modern rolling stock 2025

T1367 Heat release rates on lithium-ion batteries to ensure sufficient containment at the design stage 2025

He felt that, for freight, an option might be for the locomotive to haul a wagon with traction batteries. Yet the energy stored in the 5,700-litre fuel tank of a Class 66 locomotive is equivalent to batteries weighing over 800 tonnes which would require 27 x 20ft shipping containers.

Professor Stuart Hillmansen of the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Railway Research and Education noted that not that long ago battery traction and discontinuous electrification were only being simulated and that now they were a reality. This question now is what can be achieved with these new(ish) technologies. Answering this question requires an understanding of the physics of railway traction in which the acceleration of a train is net-force divided by the train’s mass and this force is the train’s tractive effort minus resistance and gravitational force due to gradient.

Table 2

The required battery capacity is determined by total required energy, traction and auxiliaries load, safety factors, cell degradation, and charging rate. Power restrictions are necessary to maximise battery life. As shown in the diagram, an LTO battery has a higher state of charge range without restrictions than a conventional battery. Luke stressed that battery monitoring to maintain the battery’s state of health and maximise its life is essential.

T1369 New technologies for train heating to improve passenger comfort and reduce energy consumption 2025

T1366 Developing an available traction power algorithm for smarter use of available power 2026

As an example, battery temperature needs to be

He noted that while energy demand for electric trains has always been calculated, rather than assumed, battery train range is often assumed rather than calculated. One issue is that traction system

Stuart noted that resistance is proportionate to speed squared and that the power required by a train is proportional to the cube of its speed. Hence, a 125mph train requires almost twice the power of a 100mph train. As a result, he felt that BEMUs were suited to suburban services

with an off-wire range of around one hour or 80 km, although he expected technology would improve this range. He noted that charging trains from the OLE offered various opportunities including the use of trains as mobile energy storage devices and limiting maximum pantograph power draw, and that this highlighted the need for an energy management system.

Table 1

This and other related research related to BEMUs was described in a presentation by RSSB’s Richard Turner which described the research reports shown in Table 2 (below)

Completed

Battery use for freight trains is still assumed to be limited to ‘last mile’ operation. Although BEMUs can decarbonise railway with much less electrification, Jonathan acknowledged there is still much to learn about deploying BEMUs at scale.

David Clarke of the Railway Industry Association (RIA) also agreed that the TDNS’s electrification proposals were unrealistic. As reported in Issue 208 (MayJune 2024) RIA’s report ‘Delivering a lower cost, higher performing, net zero railway by 2050’ is a plan of thirds which are: existing electrification; additional electrification;

T1195 Battery powered trains route to enter service 2021

S382 Lithium-ion battery safety 2024

T1272 Compatibility and optimisation of rolling stock batteries and appropriate standardisation for charging contact systems and infrastructure 2024

To complete

T1331

Review of dynamic ac electric rolling stock power limitations to consider whether current standards unnecessarily constrain modern rolling stock 2025

T1367 Heat release rates on lithium-ion batteries to ensure sufficient containment at the design stage 2025

T1369 New technologies for train heating to improve passenger comfort and reduce energy consumption 2025

T1366 Developing an available traction power algorithm for smarter use of available power 2026

Table 2

Traction strategy

What the introduction of BEMUs means for future rail decarbonisation plans was considered by Jonathan Williams, Network Rail’s lead strategic planner, who advised that, consistent with available funding, Network Rail has the objective of promoting the effective use and development of rail capacity. He considered that the establishment of Great British Railways (GBR) provides greater opportunities to integrate track and train to develop this strategy.

In addition, the commitment to a netzero railway by 2050 had to be delivered. The Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) that was published in 2020 had recommended this required electrification of 90% of the network. Currently 46.5% stk of the network is electrified. However, as technology had advanced since then, Network Rail is refreshing TDNS on the basis that BEMUs:

» Have a worst-case range of 50 miles running at 100mph.

» Have a re-charge time of 20 minutes which is best delivered by dynamic charging.

» Run under wires for at least 25% of their journey.

and BEMUs. Hence, RIA proposes that the amount of electrification required is two thirds of the network.

The RIA report considers that electrification is needed for freight and high-speed passenger services and shows that it has significant benefits in addition to decarbonisation. David considered that, with a positive business case, an electric railway is “a better railway however you define it”. However, the problem is affordability and lack of confidence in industry to deliver. He felt that this was unfortunate as much

has been done to reduce the cost of electrification, for example voltage control clearances which dramatically reduce the number of bridge reconstructions.

Yet, there is still no committed funding for a rail decarbonisation strategy in England and Wales with no agreement on what should be electrified. David explained how this presented significant problems for the supply chain and for freight operators who must consider how to replace their locomotive fleets.

He explained how RIA is producing a report showing that electrification is affordable. This will propose a commercial approach to minimise benefits and make the programme business case for implementation. It will also propose an efficient rolling programme of electrification and a robust rolling stock plan to maximise early benefits by deploying BEMUs.

After hearing most of the day’s presentations, delegates could be forgiven for concluding that, with the introduction of BEMUs, there is no further requirement for electrification.

Yet, as the RIA report makes clear, the network traction strategy needs to consider freight and 100 mph+ passenger trains as well as suburban passenger trains. In short, a wholesystem approach must be taken. Wholelife costs must also be considered which require an understanding of battery costs over a vehicle’s life as well as the costs of discontinuous electrification. As well as CFSs and PRSs, this includes the cost of HV cables feeding all wired sections. The seminar did not mention such costs.

Hence, although the IMechE’s Railway Division is to be congratulated for organising an informative seminar, various questions were left unanswered.

expands LIFESAVING DEPOT PROTECTION

It would be easy to think our railways are getting safer. The latest ORR statistics show the year ending March 2024 was the first with no workforce fatalities since 2016.

However, those same statistics show injuries are increasing and it would seem one particular area remains a concern – depots. If you look back over a five-year period, a third of all fatalities have occurred in maintenance facilities. RSSB data indicates a consistent level of accidents and incidents, with an average of one fatality every two and a half years across the last decade.

Depots continue to account for a substantial percentage of workforce harm, and it is clear more needs to be done to prioritise the safety of staff. At the forefront of efforts to improve working conditions is Sheffield-based Zonegreen, part of the Sentric Safety Group. Zonegreen is the rail safety solution brand for the entire group, offering a range of technically advanced systems that reduce risks in these inherently dangerous environments.

Christian Fletcher, head of engineering for Zonegreen, said: “Rail depots are undeniably complex places to work, combining the triple threat of high-speed vehicles, high voltage electricity, and powerful machinery. These latest statistics demonstrate there is still a need to focus on safety and adopt a collaborative approach to eliminating risk. That starts with regular assessments to identify hazards but should also include the adoption of technology that can mitigate the margin for human error.”

Protecting people and

equipment

Zonegreen rail safety solutions are the result of more than a century’s railway experience and expertise. These innovative solutions are already protecting maintenance workers and infrastructure in the UK and France and can be found in depots as far afield as Australia and the UAE.

Zonegreen Electronic Interlocking Solution (EIS), is the latest state-of-the-art addition to an already impressive catalogue of safety solutions.

A modern interlocking system, Zonegreen EIS authorises the operation of multiple types of machinery and access to hazardous areas using a Safety Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), instead of traditional mechanical keys. The PLC authorises the control of third-party equipment (gantry gates, cranes, etc.) via a volt-free contact and can enable/disable them as required.

HMI monitors placed in strategic locations display the status of equipment to operators. Hardwire sensors send signals back to system to ensure operation of equipment is only permitted when it is safe to do so. Rail maintenance facilities in France are among the first to benefit from this state-of-the-art technology, including the Joncherolles and Vaugirard depots in Paris.

A configurable solution that accommodates individual rail depot requirements, the benefits of Zonegreen EIS are impressive. Flexible, programmable, and highly reliable, the safety solution can handle multiple interlocking zones without adding more physical locks and keys, not only making it easier to scale, but also simplifying operations by removing the necessity

for staff to carry keys long distances and risk the potential of losing them. Zonegreen EIS intelligent technology offers full traceability and visualisation of the system, allowing it to feed into depot SCADA systems. Remote diagnosis allows status monitoring and troubleshooting to be carried out remotely.

Zonegreen rail safety solutions continue to supply manual Trapped Key Interlocking (TKI), using the best of the best trapped key interlocking systems to suit client’s local preferences. The solutions are modular and can be expanded and adapted to grow with any maintenance facility, allowing existing systems to be updated when required.

Tried and tested

The Zonegreen Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS) is renowned globally and installed in some of the most advanced maintenance facilities around the world, protecting people from plant and vehicle movements.

Personnel are issued with contactless RFID cards that can be programmed with various levels of authorisation, depending on the individual’s role. When beginning work in an area of risk, they log on to road end panels that prevent Network Rail-approved derailers from being lowered, providing physical protection by stopping trains entering the occupied road. Access permission must be given to a train by a supervisor, via the controlling road end panel, which is positioned at a convenient location. This is usually next to depot doors, giving the operator a clear view of incoming and outgoing vehicles. Only after the derailer has been lowered will the shunt signal change to ‘proceed’. Audible and visual warnings are then activated to alert staff to imminent vehicle movement.

Zonegreen DPPS is one of the safest systems on the market, boasting independent certification to prove its compliance with

both the hardware and software integrity requirements of SIL 2 – a reliability assessment of the relative risk reduction provided by a safety system. It is also the most thoroughly tested and proven in use, offering a low-risk option to depots looking to improve their working environment.

In addition, the Zonegreen third generation DPPS RFID panel has been independently certified by Eurofins to be compliant with the EN 300 330-V2.1.1 radio emissions standard.

Included within the DPPS package is the Zonegreen Depot Manager – advanced SCADA software which offers an overview of the entire protection system and complete traceability. It displays the location of personnel and the status of plant and equipment, whilst providing key information to make operations easier and quicker to implement.

Pointing in the right direction

Another area of focus for Zonegreen solutions is the improvement of safety for staff operating manual hand points. Zonegreen Points Converter technology is designed to automate traditional points and allow them to be operated remotely, reducing the risk of injuries and falls on uneven surfaces.

Points Converters are attached to existing hand switches to minimise installation costs and can stand alone or be linked together with routing. They are controlled via a handset that is either portable, installed in a cab, or mounted on a post, so the points can be switched from a position of safety.

To mark Zonegreen’s rapid progress, it has recently launched a new logo and updated its website to reflect its expanded product range and standing as the rail safety brand for the Sentric Safety Group.

To find out more about Zonegreen's depot safety systems, telephone (0114) 230 0822, visit www.zonegreen.com or follow on LinkedIn: Zonegreen Ltd.

Class 730/2 enters service

This time last year, Rail Engineer reported on West Midlands Trains’ (WMT) rolling stock and depots programme (Issue 209, July-August 2024). WMT is the operator of suburban services radiating from Euston as well as operating inter-urban services from Euston to Crewe and Birmingham New Street to Liverpool Lime Street under the London Northwestern Railway brand (LNR).

In addition to suburban services radiating from Birmingham New Street under the West Midlands Railway brand (WMR), it also operates three branch lines: Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey; Bletchley to Bedford; and Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge Town, the latter using the unique Parry People Movers.

Improved experience

In 2017, WMT ordered 80 Class 196 DMU vehicles from Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF), formed into 14, four-car and 12, two-car units. It also ordered 324 Class 730 EMU vehicles from Bombardier (now Alstom) formed into 48, three-car and 36, five-car units.

On 9 June this year, the first two units of the latter new fleet – the Class 730/2 – entered service. When all are in service they will replace 37, four-car Class 350/2 units. These new trains are financed by Rock Rail and will be based at an extended and refurbished Bletchley depot financed by Porterbrook.

The electric Class 730/2 fleet is made up of 36 five-carriage trains – a total of 180 new carriages – bringing an overall 20% increase in capacity on routes to and from Euston. Featuring open gangways, charging points at every seat, and intelligent air conditioning, WMT says these modern trains will significantly improve the passenger experience.

“Our fantastic Class 730/2 fleet is the cornerstone of our £1billion investment into the railway,” said Ian McConnell, LNR managing director. “These trains will make a real difference, bringing more capacity and modern features to the millions of commuters and leisure travellers who use our services to and from London each year.

“We are excited to bring these new electric trains onto our network, with the whole fleet expected to be rolled out by the end of 2026. I am certain they will prove a hit with our customers.”

Delayed delivery

Entry into service of the new fleet was delayed due to a high level of noise inside the cabs when running at speeds of over 90mph.

Additionally, problems had been found with the Automatic Selective Door Opening system, master input/output unit analogue to digital converter, passenger information screens, water ingress, and battery chargers.

Alstom worked hard to address these issues and, with a substantial number of the units completed, driver training began just after Easter, during which time further units with modifications were accepted by WMT.

“We are all incredibly proud to see the Class 730/2 fleet enter service,” said Rob Whyte, Alstom’s UK and Ireland managing director.

“These state-of-the-art trains represent a major step forward in sustainable, highcapacity rail travel and are a testament to the dedication and expertise of our teams. This milestone reinforces Alstom’s commitment to delivering innovation that transforms the passenger experience and supports the future of British rail.”

The trains will primarily be maintained at LNR’s traction maintenance depot in Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, which has undergone £80 million in upgrade work to accommodate them. The works included a depot shed extension, new electrified and non-electrified sidings with servicing and cleaning facilities, refurbishment of existing offices, storage and welfare facilities, and an upgraded car park layout with more efficient access.

Rail Engineer’s Malcolm Dobell was among the first passengers to experience a ride aboard the 730/2 trains. Here he gives us his verdict.

First impressions

“Two five-car units of Class 730/2 (730-213 and 730-233) formed the first passenger service trip on the 16:19 service from London Euston to Northampton. Why is this notable? This is the first Alstom Aventra fleet capable of 110mph.

“I joined the train for a short ride from Milton Keynes Central to Northampton. It was an inauspicious start as it had been 10 minutes late leaving Euston and throughout its journey. At first sight the

was easy to walk from car to car in response to automated announcements saying that only the doors on cars one to seven would open at Northampton. In the event, the platform was more than long enough, and all the doors opened. Apparently this is a software bug.

“The train is spacious with enough legroom and the usual 230V AC and USB A sockets. There were plenty of table seats, and there was a very large multi-purpose area adjacent to the accessible

steps/gaps seemed to be bigger than those of the Class 350s and it took a long time for the doors to be released –much longer than the already slow process on the Class 350. One could tell that those on board were frustrated and were jabbing the door buttons as they glowed red when pressed but were not enabled. This was probably a matter of crew familiarisation.

“On-board, the train felt quiet, and the seats seemed to be comfortable but somewhat upright. It is impressive looking along the train, with its longer cars (24 metres compared with 20 metres) and open wide gangways. The ride was smooth, and it

toilet. With fewer, longer cars, it provides more seats than on a Class 350. A 10-car Class 730/2 has 812 seats whereas a 12-car Class 350/1/3/4 has 690. The Class 350/2 had more seats but in an uncomfortable 3+2 format. It is understood that 10-car operation is planned for London Northwestern’s popular and busy Euston-Crewe line where current eight-car trains (circa 460 seats) are often overcrowded even in the middle of the day.

“Milton Keynes to Euston is my most frequent journey and I therefore have a vested interest in the success of this fleet.

“I wish them well.”

WHY IS RAIL SO EFFICIENT?Railway

As modern railway technology evolved 200 years ago, some might think that it is old fashioned. Yet, for significant passenger and freight flows it remains, and most probably always will be, the most efficient way of transporting large traffic volumes. It is also the only form of transport that offers net-zero carbon, high-speed, high-volume transportation. In this year of Railway 200, it is important to understand why the science and engineering of a railway gives it so many inherent advantages.

Resistance to motion

For a given load, a steel wheel on a steel rail typically has a tenth of the rolling resistance of an inflated rubber tyre which deforms slightly as it rotates and so requires additional energy.

Some forms of transport do not need wheels and so are not subject to rolling resistance, though these have other disadvantages. The water displaced by ships as they move creates a drag which is proportional to speed squared. Hence at low speed this is not significant. At walking pace, a horse could pull a 30-tonne canal boat, an 8-tonne rail wagon or, depending on road surface and gradient, a cart of up to two-tonnes.

Planes are subject to air resistance at high-speed and need to be lifted 10km into the air. As a result, on a London to Glasgow journey they consume around ten times more energy per seat than a train.

Wheel-less Maglev vehicles have been promoted as a future form of transport. However, the energy they consume to lift them above the track is greater than the friction losses saved from having no wheels. Furthermore, at very high speeds almost all the resistance to motion is from air resistance.

Hyperloop has also been promoted as the transport system of the future. It proposes very high-speed pods in vacuum tubes which would

have almost no resistance to motion. Yet the provision of a costly network of large vacuum tubes, hundreds of kilometres long presents significant unresolved issues. Even if this was feasible, its capacity would be significantly less than a highspeed rail line.

Spreading the load

The static weight on a rail wheel of a passenger vehicle is typically six tonnes. On a freight wagon it could be up to 12 tonnes. Dynamic loading on the wheel is much more than this. This load is supported by a contact patch the size of a 20p piece which subjects the rail to a very high pressure. This is then spread through rail pads, ballast, sand blanket, and subgrade so that it can be supported by the ground. This means that a railway with a relatively narrow footprint can carry 100 tonne freight vehicles. In contrast, roads which carry 40 tonne heavy goods vehicles need to be wider and built to support such vehicles over their entire width.

Coupled vehicles

As trains are guided by rails it is safe for trains to safely pass each other at speeds of 100mph and more than a few feet apart in a way that is not possible with manually steered vehicles. This also reduces land take as tracks can be placed close together. With rails guiding the train, it is possible to have long trains of coupled vehicles. Hence passenger trains can carry large numbers of passengers.

For example, a 12-coach Thameslink train 700/1 has 666 seats and can carry a further 1,000 standing passengers. Through its central core, Thameslink has 24 trains an hour which gives it a maximum capacity of 16,000 seated, or 40,000 crush-loaded, passengers per hour. A twolane urban road can carry typically 4,000 people per hour.

Long passenger trains are also energy efficient as much of the air resistance is from the front of the train, reducing the air resistance per vehicle.

Rails also enable one or more locomotives to haul a long freight train. For example, a 3,300-horsepower locomotive can haul a 1,500-tonne train (1.8 hp per tonne). A 40-tonne HGV with a 500-horsepower engine requires 12.5 hp/tonne and so, per tonne, requires seven times the power of a train.

Using electricity as it is generated

A further benefit of rail guided transport is that overhead cables or third rails can be used

to provide a moving train with an electricity supply. This can be generated from renewable sources and so offers net zero traction. As a result, electric trains are the only vehicles that do not need to carry their energy supply and, in the case of diesel-powered trains, they do not need to carry a heavy engine which limits the power of the train.

At 125mph a train’s pantograph can collect a maximum of 300 amps from a 25,000 volt AC overhead line to provide the train with 7.5 megawatts of power or 10,000 horse power. When braking, electric trains can also generate electricity and feed it back into the national grid thus increasing their efficiency.

While battery-powered cars offer net zero traction, battery technology is not yet suitable for high powered applications. For example, a 30-tonne battery would be required to replace the energy in a typical HGV 500 litre fuel tank.

When the Stockton and Darlington railway opened 200 years ago, its five-horsepower Locomotion No 1 was able to haul 120-ton coal trains. It was only able to do so because iron wheels on iron rails were such an efficient form of transport. Since then, this technology has been developed to carry trains at very high speeds and also to carry heavy loads. For the above reasons, there’s no reason to doubt that steel

wheels on steel rails will still be carrying passengers and freight in 200 years’ time, especially as decarbonisation requires a reduction in energy consumption which necessitates the use of the most efficient form of transport possible.

IPROFESSOR FELIX SCHMID

Demonstration of the Coventry VERY LIGHT RAIL TECHNOLOGY

n Issue 211 (Nov-Dec 2024), Rail Engineer described the development of the Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR) project and reported that it was soon to be demonstrated in the city’s streets.

Having ridden on the CVLR we are now pleased to report on these demonstration runs which took place between 28 May and 18 June and which carried a total of 3,000 people.

For the demonstration a 220-metre section of the novel shallow (30cm deep) track-form developed by Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) has been installed in Greyfriars Road and Queen Victoria Road. It consists of two straight

sections, with a mini s-curve, and a 15-metreradius curve in between, allowing testing of the main features of the vehicle. WMG is closely affiliated with the University of Coventry and has been involved in the project from the start.

Coventry VLR’s novel track-form.

Beyond expectations

As part of the development of this track, in April 2023 a 36-metre length of track was installed at the Council’s Whitley Depot facility to measure its performance under extreme conditions. Vibration sensors were fitted along this track and the vehicles passing over it were weighed. This data was fed into a ‘digital twin’ computer model to evaluate the track’s performance over time. After over a million gross vehicle tonnes had passed over this track, it was performing beyond expectations.

The track section incorporates a state-ofthe-art structural health monitoring system. This includes strain gauges embedded within the Ultra High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) slabs and in the asphalt layer, as well as accelerometers, pressure sensors, relative movement sensors, and camera systems.

This early production quality installation enables the engineers and operators to study the behaviour of the infrastructure under normal urban service conditions, subject to the CVLR vehicle loads and the impact of mixed road traffic, over the short and long term. The data will feed into a digital twin of the system, allowing predictive modelling, condition-based maintenance and a full lifecycle assessment, as well as future specification refinement.

It is essential that this information is gathered because longevity is a major requirement: the CVLR infrastructure is designed for a 30-year life, with very low maintenance cost. Providing the same service with electric buses would require at least three full rebuilds of the road over the same period.

First impressions

In June, Coventry City Council had invited the public to try out the prototype vehicle on the newly built track section which was laid in just eight weeks. My first impressions were good: a well-integrated standard tramway track, built to an exacting standard, and an elegant low-floor battery-electric vehicle.

Two rides – a total distance of 800 metres or thereabouts – were comfortable, with only a small amount of rolling noise, this despite the use of resilient wheels. The bogies are of a novel and low height design. The wheels are allowed to rotate more-or-less independently thanks to a limited slip differential in each wheelset, to cope with the tight curves expected in urban areas. The load as well as the traction and braking forces are transmitted by means of a bearing designed as a large slewing ring.

There is no primary suspension, but the air suspension integrated in the bogie is used to adapt the floor height to kerb / platform height. The traction motors and track brakes are also incorporated in the bogie. During running-in of the system, top of rail lubrication is being applied manually, and is doing its job.

The VLR vehicle has been built by NP Aerospace, a local defence company. It is an 11-metre-long bogie vehicle with four doors and two driving positions. The capacity is 56 passengers, of which 20 are seated. The ‘cabs’ are a short-term feature, given that the intention is for the operation to be driverless - that is, autonomous. Once the ‘cabs’ are removed, the capacity will increase by some 8-10 spaces.

Track-form installed at Council’s depot was subjected to one million gross tonnes loading.

Coventry VLR’s under fast charging system at the BIMCO test track.

Automatic operation will allow the system to be demand responsive in a similar way to the metro networks in Lille and Toulouse.

Specifications

Some of the technical characteristics are:

450mm wheel size, 1-metre wheel-base, and 7.6 metres between bogie centres. The overall width is 2.637 metres. The tare mass is 11 tonnes, about 1 tonne per metre, thanks to the use of composites in the construction. A total of 50kWh of electrical energy is stored in two safe and long-life 650V Lithium Titanite batteries. These weigh a total of about 900kg, including the battery control system. These are fast charge batteries, able to deliver 160A to four axial flux machines with a nominal power of 64kW. It has an 80kWh Lithium Titanium Oxide battery, which is the same type as those used on the Class 93 locomotives.

In 2022, the West Midlands City Region was awarded a £1 billion West Midlands City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement which

included £71.5 million to develop the Coventry VLR. However, as this is a development project, this VLR money is only released following the successful completion of each development stage. In June, the Department for Transport (DfT) had released a further £12 million of funding. This will enable an 800-metre section from the railway station to the University Technology Park on Puma Way. It is expected that construction of this longer section will commence in 2026 and that this first Coventry VLR route will be operational in 2027.

NOTE: In July, it was announced that the Black Country Innovative Manufacturing Organisation (BCIMO), which owns the VLR test track at Dudley, has gone into administration due to rising costs and a lack of anticipated funding. Administrators are exploring options to sell the facility with a view to keep it as a test facility. Coventry City Council has stated that this will not have any impact on the development of the Coventry VLR system.

SIEMENS MOBILITY

We understand that collaboration across the rail industry is crucial for reducing cost and driving transformation.

siemens.co.uk/mobility